Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
1990 (4) TMI 128 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
1. Whether the seized aircraft tyres, degraded and sold as animal drawn vehicle (ADV) tyres, are entitled to exemption from excise duty under Notification No. 229/82-CE. 2. Whether the confiscated tyres were specifically designed for use in animal drawn vehicles as per the exemption conditions. 3. Whether the penalty imposed on the appellants is justified. Analysis: 1. The appellants manufactured aircraft tyres but found some to be of lesser quality, subsequently selling them as ADV tyres for camel drawn carts. The Central Excise Officers seized a consignment leading to a show cause notice for confiscation, duty demand, and penalty. The Collector of Central Excise ordered confiscation, duty demand, and imposed a penalty. The appeal challenged this order. 2. The appellants argued that the degraded aircraft tyres should be considered ADV tyres entitled to exemption. The Department contended that the tyres were not specifically designed for ADV use, emphasizing the discrepancy between gate pass descriptions and actual sizes found. The Collector's order indicated that aero tyres were being cleared as ADV tyres to evade duty, regardless of actual use. 3. The Tribunal examined Notification No. 229/82-CE, which exempts tyres specifically designed for ADV use, marked with "ADV." The Tribunal found that the seized tyres were initially aero tyres, not specifically designed for ADV use, with superior quality standards. The argument that actual use determines eligibility for exemption was dismissed. The Tribunal upheld duty demand and confiscation but reduced the penalty due to lack of proof of actual misuse. In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the seized aircraft tyres, sold as ADV tyres, were not entitled to exemption under the notification as they were not specifically designed for ADV use. The duty demand and confiscation were upheld, while the penalty was reduced. The appeal was partially allowed, reducing the penalty imposed.
|