|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 381 to 400 of 2676 Records
-
2007 (10) TMI 674
The High Court of Bombay admitted the Central Excise Appeal based on substantial questions of law regarding modvat benefit under Rule 57Q and the process of rebuilding Raw Mill and Cement Mill through welding for cement manufacture. Shri V.R. Thakur represented the appellant, and Shri F.T. Mirza represented the respondent who waived notice.
-
2007 (10) TMI 673
Issues involved: Challenge to order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal by Revenue regarding MODVAT benefit extension and Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules 1944.
MODVAT benefit extension: The appeal was filed by Revenue against the Tribunal's order setting aside the Commissioner's decision and remanding the matter to rework the duty payable by the assesse. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Commissioner v. Nagammai Cotton Mills Ltd., where it was held that Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules 1944 is directory, not mandatory. The main question raised was whether MODVAT benefit can be extended suo moto without filing a declaration as required under Rule 57G. The High Court, citing the Supreme Court judgment in the Nagammai Cotton Mills case, concluded that the question of law had already been addressed and dismissed the appeal.
Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules 1944: The Tribunal's decision to set aside the Commissioner's order was based on the interpretation of Rule 57G. The Tribunal allowed the assesse's appeal and directed the Commissioner to rework the duty payable. However, the High Court, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Commissioner v. Nagammai Cotton Mills Ltd., found that the question of whether MODVAT benefit can be extended without filing a declaration under Rule 57G had already been settled. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue challenging the Tribunal's decision.
-
2007 (10) TMI 671
CENVAT/MODVAT credit - capital goods - cement - steel bars - waste - rule 57(U) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Held that: - the cement, steel plates and bars in respect of which modvat credit has been availed of by respondent no.2 have been used for providing support to machines - decided against Revenue.
-
2007 (10) TMI 667
Issues involved: Confirmation of differential duty, imposition of interest, penalty under Section 11AC, penalty under Rule 27 for non-filing of returns in time.
Summary:
Confirmation of differential duty, imposition of interest, and penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 27:
The appeal was filed against the order-in-appeal dated 31/01/2006, challenging the confirmation of differential duty, imposition of interest, and penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 27 for non-filing of returns on time. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the penalties imposed, stating that the duty was paid only after the show cause notice was issued, justifying the penalties. However, the appellant contended that any short levy was due to a lack of knowledge and a delay in filing returns, which occurred in a period without any short levy. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider these contentions while upholding the penalties. The Tribunal found these contentions valid and set aside the order upholding the penalties, remanding the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for reconsideration in light of the appellant's submissions. The appeal was allowed in respect of the penalties imposed.
Conclusion:
The impugned order upholding the penalties was set aside, and the matter was remanded back for reconsideration, granting the appellant an opportunity for a personal hearing.
-
2007 (10) TMI 666
Issues:
- Appeal under amended Section 35B of Central Excise Act, 1944
- Benefit of concessional rate of duty on cotton fabrics
- Applicability of Notifications 14/2002-C.E. and 22/96-C.E.
- Differential duty, interest, and penalty imposed by Commissioner
- Tribunal's judgment in Simplex Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai
Analysis:
1. The appeal was initially dismissed for non-submission as required under the amended Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, the appellants later paid the fee, leading to the restoration of the appeal to its original position.
2. The appeal, involving a narrow issue, was taken up for disposal with the consent of both sides, waiving pre-deposit of differential duty and penalty imposed by the Commissioner.
3. The department contended that the appellants manufactured cotton fabrics from spinning yarn, availing duty benefits under Notification 22/96. The issue revolved around whether the appellants could avail the concessional duty rate under Notification 14/2002-C.E. for fabrics manufactured between October 2002 and March 2003.
4. After adjudication, the Commissioner ordered the appellants to pay differential duty, interest, and imposed a penalty. The appellants cited Tribunal's judgment in Simplex Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai, where a similar issue was addressed.
5. The Tribunal found the appellants' case aligned with the Simplex Mills judgment, emphasizing that captive consumption was exempted under Notification 22/96. The Commissioner was deemed to have misapplied the duty rate, leading to setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal.
-
2007 (10) TMI 652
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of cess not paid on tea exported, interpretation of Notification exempting tea from levy and collection of cess, applicability of Circular No. 60/1/2006-CX, and the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the payment of cess on tea exported under bond.
Waiver of Pre-deposit and Stay of Recovery of Cess:
M/s. Dunsandle Tea Factory applied for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of &8377; 39,297/- being cess not paid on tea exported and interest due thereon demanded for the period 2/05 to 9/05. The appellants exported tea under bond without paying cess imposed under Tea Act, 1953, believing in the exemption notification issued by the Ministry of Commerce. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that cess had to be paid on tea when exported under bond as the levy of cess was not exempted in terms of the Tea Act, 1953. However, the Circular No. 60/1/2006-CX issued by the CBEC stated that goods are exempt from payment of cess when exported under bond if the provisions of the Central Excise Act and Rules were applicable. Considering the Circular and the Notification dated 1-9-2004 of the Ministry of Commerce, the Tribunal found that cess on tea is not liable to be paid when exported under bond by a star export house. Therefore, a complete waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the demanded cess was granted until the appeal is finally disposed of.
Interpretation of Notification Exempting Tea from Levy and Collection of Cess:
The Notification No. S.O. 9777(E) issued by the Ministry of Commerce exempted all tea produced in India and exported by Export-Oriented Units from the levy and collection of cess. The appellants claimed exemption based on this notification, supported by Circular No. 60/1/2006-CX issued by the CBEC. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the levy of cess on tea exported under bond was not exempted under the Tea Act, 1953. However, the Tribunal, after considering the Circular and the Notification, found that cess on tea is not liable to be paid when exported under bond by a star export house, leading to the waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the demanded cess.
Decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) Regarding Payment of Cess on Tea Exported Under Bond:
The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on a decision of the Government of India in the case of Bharath Beedi Works Ltd., where it was held that in the absence of a Notification under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001, cess had to be paid on export of goods under bond. The Government concurred with the decision of CEGAT that cess was leviable unless there was an exemption notification issued. However, the Tribunal, after analyzing the Circular and the Notification, concluded that cess on tea exported under bond by a star export house is not liable to be paid, leading to the waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the demanded cess.
-
2007 (10) TMI 646
MODVAT/CENVAT credit - denial on the ground that they have availed cenvat credit on the basis of the invoices supplied by the registered dealer, who has not supplied duty apid inputs but has supplied non duty paid scrap to appellant - Held that: - the Revenue has not considered the fact that the appellant had received and consumed the inputs in the factory premises and paid for the same. There is also no contrary evidence to show that the appellant had not paid the supplier's invoices raised on them - appeal allowed.
-
2007 (10) TMI 621
Issues Involved:
1. Correct classification of the vehicle manufactured by the appellant.
2. Applicability of Maharashtra Motor Vehicle Rules for classification under Central Excise Act.
3. Validity of previous Tribunal orders and their impact on the current case.
4. Requirement of pre-deposit for hearing the appeal.
Summary:
1. Correct Classification of the Vehicle:
The primary issue is whether the appellant's vehicle should be classified under Chapter Heading No. 87.02 or 87.03 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant claims classification under 87.02, which pertains to "public transport type passenger motor vehicles," while the revenue contends it should fall under 87.03, which covers "motor cars and other motor vehicles principally designed for the transport of persons."
2. Applicability of Maharashtra Motor Vehicle Rules:
The adjudicating authority based its decision on Rules 79(7), 82, and 84 of the Maharashtra Motor Vehicle Rules, 1988, concluding that the vehicle did not meet the specifications for carrying ten passengers. However, the Tribunal had previously held that the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act and the Rules made thereunder cannot be used for classification under the Central Excise Act.
3. Validity of Previous Tribunal Orders:
The Tribunal had earlier upheld the classification of the vehicle under Chapter Heading No. 87.02 in its Final Order No. A/1415/WZB/2005/C-II/EB dated 19-7-2005. This order was challenged by the revenue in the Supreme Court, but no stay was granted. The Tribunal noted that the classification list for the same period and vehicle had attained finality and could not be challenged in subsequent proceedings until reversed by a higher judicial forum.
4. Requirement of Pre-deposit:
The Tribunal considered the appellant's request for waiver of pre-deposit. Given that the classification issue had been previously settled in favor of the appellant and the substantial stakes involved, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit of duties and penalties and stayed the recovery until the disposal of the appeal.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the appellant had made a prima facie case for the waiver of pre-deposit and directed the registry to list the appeal for final hearing in December 2007. The Tribunal emphasized that the provisions of the Maharashtra Motor Vehicle Rules were not relevant for determining the classification of the vehicle under the Central Excise Act.
-
2007 (10) TMI 619
Central Excise – Clearance of goods not made on provisional basis - the decision in the case of MAURIA UDYOG LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [2006 (8) TMI 49 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] contested, where it was held that Unable to accept the request as matter covered by judgments of S.C. - Held that: - the decision in the above case upheld - appeal dismissed.
-
2007 (10) TMI 614
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Central Excise Appeal Nos. 76, 77, 78, 79, and 80 of 2007 filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Rohtak, challenging a common order of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeal questioned the refund of Cenvat Credit on inputs used in manufacturing final products exported under rebate claim. The court referred to a similar case and dismissed the appeals based on a previous order.
-
2007 (10) TMI 612
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI ruled in favor of the respondent in a tax liability case related to "tour operator's service" involving the hiring of a bus for employee transportation. The Tribunal cited previous cases supporting the respondent's position and rejected the appeals filed by the revenue department.
-
2007 (10) TMI 607
Issues involved: Interpretation of exemption notifications u/s 6/2002 and 30/2004, applicability of conditions for exemption, admissibility of credit, and limitation period for demand.
Interpretation of exemption notifications u/s 6/2002 and 30/2004:
The appellants manufactured Nylon Fishing Nets using nylon multi-filament yarn and classified nylon twine under CET sub heading 5607.90. The dispute arose regarding the availability of exemption under notifications 6/2002 and 30/2004. The Revenue contended that exemption conditions were not met as the filament yarn used was fully exempt from duty. The department interpreted notification 30/2004 to disallow exemption if credit on inputs was taken. Extended limitation period was applied.
Admissibility of credit and fulfillment of exemption conditions:
The Tribunal found that for the period post 9.7.04, the benefit of exemption under notification 30/2004 could not be denied as no credit of duty was taken on the inputs used for manufacturing nylon twine. The language of the notification did not require duty paid inputs, only that no credit should be taken. Thus, the exemption was held admissible for the disputed product.
Limitation period for demand and applicability of exemption under notification 6/2002:
For the period pre-notification 30/2004, the Tribunal held that exemption under notification 6/2002 was not available as the filament yarn used was duty exempt, not duty paid as required by Condition no. 34. However, the demand for this period was found to be beyond the statutory limitation period of one year. The appellants were not guilty of suppression to invoke the extended limitation. The Tribunal set aside the demands and penalties, allowing the appeals.
Separate Judgement by Judges:
None.
-
2007 (10) TMI 542
Issues:
- Dispute over rebate claim for closure of unit for more than 36 days.
- Interpretation of Rule 96ZQ(f) and Rule 96ZQ(g) regarding duty payment.
- Applicability of previous judgments in similar cases.
Analysis:
1. Rebate Claim Dispute:
The appeal stemmed from the rejection of a rebate claim by the Original Authority, which was confirmed in the Order-in-appeal. The claim arose due to the closure of the unit for over 30 days, specifically covering July and August 2000 when the stenters were sealed. The Revenue did not contest the sealing of the stenters during this period. The contention revolved around whether the duty needed to be paid in advance for this period.
2. Interpretation of Rule 96ZQ(f) and Rule 96ZQ(g):
The crux of the matter lay in the application of Rule 96ZQ(f) and Rule 96ZQ(g) concerning duty payment. While Rule 96ZQ(f) mandates duty payment in advance for closures less than one month, Rule 96ZQ(g) exempts the deposit of duty for closures exceeding one month. The authorities had erroneously applied Rule 96ZQ(f) instead of Rule 96ZQ(g) in this case, leading to the incorrect direction for the assessee to pre-deposit the tax. The Tribunal emphasized that Rule 96ZQ(g) was indeed applicable due to the closure exceeding one month, as evidenced by previous judgments supporting this interpretation.
3. Applicability of Previous Judgments:
The Tribunal referenced three previous judgments, including Mahalakshmi Enterprises v. CCE, Janki Processers Ltd. v. CCE, and Vijay Anand Fabrics (P) Ltd. v. CCE, to support the assessee's position. These judgments clarified that when stenters are closed for more than one month, Rule 96ZQ(g) exempts the duty payment in advance. The Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was not legally sound and set it aside, thereby allowing the appeal in favor of the assessee.
In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, highlighting the incorrect application of the relevant rules by the authorities and emphasizing the precedence set by previous judgments in similar cases. The decision underscored the importance of accurate interpretation and application of the rules governing duty payment in situations of unit closures, ultimately leading to the allowance of the appeal and the setting aside of the initial order.
-
2007 (10) TMI 541
Issues:
1. Provisional duty liability determination based on capacity.
2. Abatement claim and subsequent duty payment discrepancies.
3. Imposition of penalties and interest by the Joint Commissioner.
4. Appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequent Tribunal hearing.
Issue 1: Provisional Duty Liability Determination Based on Capacity
The appellants, manufacturers of man-made fabrics, were subject to Central Excise duty under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner provisionally fixed the duty liability based on the "Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998." The appellants transitioned to a new stenter setup, resulting in a change in duty payment structure. The Commissioner issued final determination orders for different periods, considering the stenters' capacities. The appellants claimed abatement due to closing one stenter, leading to a discrepancy in duty payment for December 1999. The Revenue sought recovery, and the Joint Commissioner confirmed the demand, imposing penalties and interest.
Issue 2: Abatement Claim and Subsequent Duty Payment Discrepancies
The appellants filed an abatement claim due to closing one stenter, which was granted by the Commissioner. However, a shortfall in duty payment for December 1999 arose, leading to a demand for the outstanding amount. The appellants contested the discrepancy, citing the closure of chambers and the factual situation regarding stenter operations. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal, prompting the appellants to seek relief before the Tribunal based on previous decisions and factual considerations.
Issue 3: Imposition of Penalties and Interest by the Joint Commissioner
The Joint Commissioner imposed penalties under Rule 96 ZQ(5)(ii) and Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, along with interest, due to the duty payment discrepancies and shortfall. The penalties were levied concerning the alleged non-compliance with duty payment obligations and procedural violations. The appellants challenged the penalties and interest imposed, emphasizing the factual circumstances and previous tribunal decisions in similar cases.
Issue 4: Appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) and Subsequent Tribunal Hearing
The appellants, dissatisfied with the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, approached the Tribunal seeking relief. The Tribunal considered the previous Final Order related to a similar issue involving the appellants and found in favor of the appellants based on capacity determination and factual considerations. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief as appropriate, in line with the previous decision and factual findings. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced in open court on 8-10-2007, concluding the legal proceedings in this matter.
-
2007 (10) TMI 540
Issues:
Department's appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order on credit eligibility and penalties imposed.
Analysis:
The case involved a dispute over the eligibility of credit and penalties imposed by the original authority on a company for a shortage of raw material. The officers found a shortage of Diphenyl Methane Di-Isocyanate (MDI) during a visit to the factory premises, leading to a credit dispute. The company had imported 38,000 kgs of MDI but physically received only 2,500 kgs. The company sought permission to avail credit for the remaining quantity due to storage space issues. The Assistant Commissioner granted permission but imposed a penalty for procedural violations. Subsequently, the original authority confirmed the recovery of the credit amount and imposed penalties on the company and its directors.
The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the original authority's order, criticizing the officers and the penal provisions. The department appealed this decision. During the hearing, the Authorized Representative argued that the company was eligible for credit due to procedural reasons and the nature of the imported material being released in piecemeal by the guarantor. The Tribunal found some of the Commissioner's remarks unwarranted and held that the dispute over credit eligibility was not a mala fide action by the officers. The Tribunal accepted the Commissioner's order on the merit of credit eligibility and procedural violations, rejecting the department's appeal.
In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order regarding credit eligibility and penalties imposed, rejecting the department's appeal. The Tribunal found the adverse remarks against the departmental officers unwarranted, emphasizing that the dispute was procedural and not mala fide. The case highlighted the importance of following procedures in availing credits and the need for fair assessments in excise matters.
-
2007 (10) TMI 539
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Kolkata, heard the case where the appellant did not dispute duty-liability and interest amount but argued that the delay in payment was due to financial difficulty, not malafide intention. The penalty imposed was set aside as there was no finding of fraudulent intention in the delayed payment. The appeal was partly allowed by setting aside the penalty.
-
2007 (10) TMI 537
Issues: Modification of order regarding demand, interest under Section 11AB, and penalty under Section 11AC.
Demand Modification Issue:
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, heard a modification petition seeking to alter its order dated 10-1-07. Despite the applicant's absence, the tribunal considered the grounds for modification. The modification application argued that the demand related to a specific period, and interest under Section 11AB should only apply from 29-9-1996. However, the tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had already addressed the interest liability issue. The Commissioner's order clarified that interest under Section 11AB is chargeable only for clearances after 29-9-1996. As there was no dispute on this issue before the Tribunal, the ground for modification regarding the interest start date was deemed baseless.
Interest under Section 11AB Issue:
The Commissioner (Appeals) had previously ruled on the liability for interest under Section 11AB, citing a CBEC circular that clarified the application of Section 11AB from 29-9-1996 onwards. This decision favored the assessee. The tribunal emphasized that the interest under Section 11AB was only chargeable for clearances made after 29-9-1996, as per the Commissioner's order. Consequently, the modification claim that interest should apply from 29-9-1996 lacked a valid basis.
Penalty under Section 11AC Issue:
The modification application also raised concerns about imposing penalties under Section 11AC solely from 29-9-1996. The tribunal noted that penal provisions existed before this date and that the show cause notice invoked penalties under both Section 11AC and 173Q. The upper limit for penalties under Section 173Q was three times the value of the goods involved. Since the duty confirmations encompassed clearances from both before and after 29-9-1996, the tribunal rejected the modification request related to the penalty applicability date.
In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, dismissed the modification application, as the grounds presented lacked merit based on existing legal interpretations and precedents. The tribunal reaffirmed the Commissioner's ruling on interest under Section 11AB and penalties under Sections 11AC and 173Q, emphasizing that the modifications sought were not supported by the legal framework and factual circumstances of the case.
-
2007 (10) TMI 535
Issues:
1. Refund claim allowed by Asst. Commissioner but set aside by Commissioner (Appeals).
2. Classification under Chapter 39.15 and exemption under Notification No. 6/2000-CE.
3. Non-submission of original duty paying documents.
4. Assessment order challenge based on Board's Circular No. 22 and subsequent withdrawal.
5. Rejection of refund claim due to failure to prove non-passing of duty burden to customers.
6. Application of unjust enrichment principle for refund cases.
Analysis:
1. The appellant's refund claim, initially allowed by the Asst. Commissioner, was contested by the Revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals), resulting in the reversal of the decision. The appellant challenged this reversal through the present appeal.
2. The dispute revolved around the classification of goods under Chapter 39.15 and the availability of exemption under Notification No. 6/2000-CE. The Commissioner (Appeals) highlighted the significance of correct classification for duty exemptions and emphasized that the ITC classification did not govern duty exemptions under the Central Excise Tariff Act.
3. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund claim not only due to the lack of submission of original duty paying documents but also on the grounds discussed in the order, including the finality of assessments and the absence of a valid appeal against the assessment order.
4. The appellant's argument regarding the impact of the withdrawal of Board's Circular No. 22 on their ability to challenge the assessment order was dismissed. The judgment referenced the principle that duty paid without challenging the classification cannot be refunded, citing a relevant Supreme Court decision.
5. The rejection of the refund claim was also based on the appellant's failure to demonstrate that the duty burden had not been passed on to their customers. The appellant's assertion that the payment was a deposit made under protest was not supported by evidence to prove non-passing of the duty burden.
6. The judgment concluded that the appeal lacked merit, leading to its rejection. The principle of unjust enrichment was highlighted as a crucial factor in refund cases, emphasizing the need for applicants to prove that the duty paid has not been passed on to customers to qualify for a refund.
This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the issues raised, the arguments presented, and the legal principles applied in the decision-making process.
-
2007 (10) TMI 534
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad withdrew the order and fixed the appeal for final hearing on 26-11-2007. The decision was made in light of the issue involving M/s. Om Textiles (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai.
-
2007 (10) TMI 533
Issues:
1. Duty liability on diverted goods cleared for export.
2. Imposition of penalties on the appellant and other parties.
3. Verification of subsequent export of seized goods to determine duty liabilities.
4. Justification of penalties imposed on different parties.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Duty liability on diverted goods cleared for export
The case involved the diversion of goods meant for export to the local market by the intending agent and the transport company. The Commissioner confirmed the demand of duty on the duty-free imported and procured raw materials, as well as on the final products cleared in the local market. The appellant did not dispute the duty liability but claimed to be victims of the fraud. The appellant argued that they had redeemed and exported the balance seized goods, thus should not be liable to pay duty on those goods. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner to verify if the goods were indeed exported, and if so, the duty liabilities on the raw materials and final products would not be payable.
Issue 2: Imposition of penalties on the appellant and other parties
The Commissioner imposed penalties on the appellant, the Director of the appellant company, and the transport company for their alleged involvement in the diversion of goods. However, the Tribunal found no evidence implicating the appellant company in the fraud. The Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed on the appellant and the Director, noting that they were victims of the fraud. The penalties imposed on the transport company were upheld due to evidence showing their involvement in tampering with the goods and clearing them to the local market.
Issue 3: Verification of subsequent export of seized goods to determine duty liabilities
The Tribunal highlighted that the seized goods were released to the appellant upon payment of a fine without insisting on duty payment. The appellant claimed that the goods were subsequently exported, which would negate the duty liabilities on those goods. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner for verification, emphasizing that if the goods were indeed exported, duty liabilities on the raw materials and final products would not be payable.
Issue 4: Justification of penalties imposed on different parties
The Tribunal found no justification for the significant penalties imposed on the appellant and the Director, as there was no evidence of their involvement in the fraud. The penalties on the appellant and the Director were set aside. However, the penalty imposed on the transport company was upheld due to clear evidence of their role in tampering with the goods and diverting them to the local market.
In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of all appeals by setting aside penalties on the appellant and the Director, upholding the penalty on the transport company, and remanding the matter to the Commissioner for verification of subsequent export to determine duty liabilities.
............
|
9911796707
