|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 570 Records
-
2003 (10) TMI 581
The Appellate Tribunal CEstAT, Mumbai allowed the appeals regarding denial of credit on various items used by a dye manufacturer, citing a Supreme Court decision that eligibility for credit cannot be denied based on use qualifications. The appeals were disposed of by a common order.
-
2003 (10) TMI 580
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai upheld the order of the Commissioner of Customs confiscating industrial tyres imported by the appellant for not producing the required import license. The appellant's appeal was dismissed as the tribunal did not find the grounds presented by the appellant to be valid.
-
2003 (10) TMI 579
Issues:
Waiver of deposit of duty and penalty for wrongly taken Cenvat credit.
Analysis:
The judgment deals with an application for the waiver of deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 3,76,221 and a penalty of Rs. 50,000, found to be wrongly taken as Cenvat credit by the adjudicating officer and the appellate authority. The chief accountant representing the appellant requested an adjournment citing the unavailability of the advocate in Chennai due to illness. However, the tribunal found the reasons for adjournment unsatisfactory as the advocate's details and engagement were not provided. Consequently, the tribunal declined the adjournment and proceeded with the hearing, allowing the chief accountant to present arguments.
The core issue revolved around the appellant claiming credit for additional duty on goods imported by Caltex India Ltd. The credit was denied due to non-compliance with the requirement specified in Board circular 179/13/96-CX, which mandated a declaration on the bill of entry for transferring goods to avail credit, endorsed by the customs officer. The stay application lacked substantial grounds, merely alleging improper consideration by the Commissioner (Appeals). The tribunal noted that the Commissioner had provided detailed reasons in the order. The appellant's reliance on a public notice issued by the Commissioner of Customs was deemed irrelevant as it did not address the specific issue at hand. The circular suggested accepting unsigned and unauthenticated documents for credit, which was impractical and against standard procedures. Lack of evidence demonstrating the transfer of goods to Caltex India Ltd. further weakened the appellant's case.
In light of the circumstances, the tribunal directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 1.90 lakhs within two months and furnish evidence thereof to waive the remaining deposit and penalty, thereby staying their recovery. The compliance deadline was set for 13-11-2003. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to prescribed procedures and providing substantiated arguments in seeking waivers or reliefs related to duty and penalties in indirect tax matters.
-
2003 (10) TMI 578
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, decided to dispose of the appeal without pre-deposit as both sides agreed. The appellant had already deposited the duty before the show cause notice was issued. The Tribunal found no intention to evade duty and set aside the penalty imposed under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q. The appeal was allowed.
-
2003 (10) TMI 577
Issues:
1. Interpretation of private record entries for excisable goods.
2. Allegation of non-relation of seized private record to the appellants.
3. Discrepancies between private record and statutory record entries.
4. Classification of lamp shades as exempted goods.
Analysis:
1. The appellants contested the interpretation of entries in the private record recovered from their possession, claiming it did not belong to them. They argued that the absence of evidence linking the record to their employees rendered it unreliable for confirming duty liabilities. Additionally, they pointed out that the private record lacked essential details like goods' descriptions and values, making duty quantification impossible based on those entries. The appellants also discredited statements by individuals like the excise clerk, which were later retracted. They further contended that lamp shades should be considered chimneys, exempt from duty.
2. The Revenue department countered the appellants' claims by highlighting the circumstances of seizing the private record from one of the appellants' partners who attempted to flee with it. They argued that the excise clerk's detailed explanation of the private record entries, especially relating to glass tumblers and lamp shades, supported the duty liability. The Revenue emphasized the correlation between the private record entries indicating excisable goods clearance and the statutory record entries showing exempted goods clearance. They differentiated between chimneys and lamp shades, asserting that the latter were not exempted items.
3. The Tribunal examined the evidence presented by both sides, notably the private record entries, statements by the excise clerk, and feedback from customers receiving goods from the appellants. It noted discrepancies between the private record entries for excisable goods and the corresponding entries in the statutory record for exempted goods. The Tribunal found that the private record, as interpreted by the excise clerk, demonstrated the clearance of goods without duty payment, contradicting the appellants' arguments. Additionally, the Tribunal rejected the appellants' classification of lamp shades as chimneys, citing customer testimonies confirming the former as decorative items.
4. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, concluding that the private record recovered from the appellants' possession was valid evidence of excisable goods clearance. It found no merit in the appellants' arguments regarding the private record's ownership or the classification of lamp shades as exempted goods. The Tribunal upheld the duty liability based on the evidence presented and the discrepancies between the private and statutory records, thereby affirming the adjudicating authority's decision.
-
2003 (10) TMI 576
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai waived the pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 50,000 imposed on the clerk of M/s. Saan International Agency (CHA) due to lack of evidence connecting the clerk with the offence of abetment in transportation of concealed foreign currency. The waiver was granted as no other statement implicated the clerk besides the one from Girish Gopal Parab.
-
2003 (10) TMI 575
Issues: Application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty; Imposition of penalty on cargo handling agents for failure to account for consignments; Comparison of roles of different carriers in the case
Paragraph 1: The judgment pertains to an application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- imposed on cargo handling agents for failing to account for 18 consignments manifested as transhipment cargo, allegedly indicating a modus operandi for smuggling contraband goods. The penalty arose from an order by the Commissioner of Customs (Airport), Mumbai.
Paragraph 2: The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and considering a previous order regarding waiver of pre-deposit for another carrier, directed the current applicants to furnish a personal bond covering the penalty amount within one month for a stay against recovery and waiver of pre-deposit. The argument that the roles of different carriers were different was deemed not prima facie acceptable, and any differences in roles would be considered during the final hearing of the appeal.
Paragraph 3: The appeal, along with the appeal of another carrier, is scheduled for hearing on 21st November, 2003, indicating that the roles of different carriers in the case would be further examined during the appeal process.
-
2003 (10) TMI 574
The judgment by Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai addressed the issue of admissibility of Modvat credit on HDPE bags. The exclusion clause under Rule 57A(1) includes bags made from strips or tapes of plastics. The appellants' claim for Modvat credit was denied as the bags in question were made from woven material of plastics, falling under the exclusion clause. The appeal was rejected.
-
2003 (10) TMI 573
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification 203/92 dated 19-5-1992 regarding Modvat credit reversal.
2. Duty demand under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) and Section 114(A) of the Act.
Interpretation of Notification 203/92 dated 19-5-1992 regarding Modvat credit reversal:
The appellants, engaged in the manufacture of polyester filament yarn, were issued Value Based Advanced Licences (VBAL) for duty-free import of certain items. They fulfilled the export obligation under these licences, and Central Excise officers directed them to reverse an amount towards Modvat credit. The appellants filed a claim for refund, which was initially sanctioned but later reviewed by the Commissioner. The Tribunal, in a previous order, concluded that the appellants had complied with the conditions of the notification, requiring only a specific amount of Modvat credit to be reversed. The Tribunal accepted the explanation regarding the reversal of credit in respect of certain inputs. A subsequent ROM order corrected an error in the initial finding, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal.
Duty demand under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The Commissioner confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 2,64,84,742 under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, based on the alleged violation of conditions regarding Modvat credit reversal. However, the Tribunal's earlier order and subsequent corrections in the ROM order clarified that the appellants had fulfilled the relevant conditions of the notification, rendering the duty demand baseless. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) and Section 114(A) of the Act:
The Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 60 lakhs on the company under Section 112(a) and Section 114(A) of the Act. However, with the Tribunal's findings in the previous order and subsequent corrections in the ROM order, which clarified the compliance of the appellants with the notification conditions, the basis for imposing the penalty was negated. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, indicating that the penalty imposition was unjustified in light of the clarified interpretation of the notification requirements.
-
2003 (10) TMI 572
Issues:
- Appeal against dismissal of appeal as time-barred due to delay in filing
- Discrepancy in the date of receipt of the impugned order
- Validity of the affidavit submitted by the appellants
- Consideration of technicalities of law vs. administration of justice
Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the dismissal of the appellants' appeal as time-barred due to a delay in filing. The Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal against the order-in-original, deeming it time-barred. The appellants argued that they received the impugned order on 10-6-2002 and filed the appeal on 28-6-2002, within the statutory period. The Respondent contended that the order-in-original was dispatched on 8-2-2002, and they had deposited duty and penalty subsequently. The Commissioner (Appeals) presumed the appellants received the order on or before 15-2-2002, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
2. The Tribunal noted that the exact date of receipt of the impugned order by the appellants was crucial. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not specify when the order was received by the appellants, merely presuming it was before 15-2-2002. The appellants submitted an affidavit stating they received the order on 10-6-2002, which the Commissioner (Appeals) did not challenge. The appellants had no motive to delay filing the appeal, having already deposited duty and penalty promptly after receiving the order.
3. Emphasizing the importance of justice over technicalities, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order, directing a re-hearing of the appeal on merits. It was highlighted that the appellants had acted in good faith by depositing duty and penalty promptly, indicating their willingness to resolve the matter. The Tribunal stressed that justice should prevail, and the appellants deserved a fair hearing on the merits of the case.
4. In conclusion, the Tribunal overturned the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh hearing on the merits. The decision underscored the appellants' good faith actions in promptly fulfilling their financial obligations and the importance of ensuring justice is served, even if it requires setting aside technical legalities.
-
2003 (10) TMI 571
Issues:
Classification of product under CET Heading 8703.10 vs. 8702.10, Application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty demand.
Classification Issue Analysis:
The case involved a dispute over the classification of a product, a Tata Sumo Ambulance, under CET Heading 8703.10 by the Commissioner of Central Excise (A), Pune. The appellant claimed the product should be classified under CET Heading 8702.10, which covers motor vehicles designed for the transport of more than 6 but not more than 12 persons excluding the driver. The department's classification was based on the vehicle being principally designed for transporting not more than six persons excluding the driver. The Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI) certificate indicated a sitting capacity of 8 persons when the patient is not in a lying condition and 3 persons when the patient is lying down, supporting the department's stance. The Tribunal found the classification issue to be contentious, with no strong prima facie case for waiver, directing a pre-deposit of Rs. 4 lakhs within eight weeks to stay the recovery pending appeal.
Waiver of Pre-Deposit Issue Analysis:
The application for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 6,77,223/- was made in response to the duty demand arising from the Commissioner's order. The Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances of the case, noting that the classification issue was contentious and that the certificate from ARAI supported the department's classification decision. As a result, the Tribunal directed the appellant to pre-deposit Rs. 4 lakhs within eight weeks, failing which the stay would be vacated, and the appeal dismissed without prior notice. Compliance was required to be reported by a specified date.
In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai addressed the classification issue of a Tata Sumo Ambulance under different CET headings and the application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty demand. The Tribunal found the classification dispute to be contentious, with no strong prima facie case for waiver, and directed a partial pre-deposit to stay the recovery pending appeal. Compliance with the pre-deposit directive was crucial to maintain the stay on recovery and appeal dismissal.
-
2003 (10) TMI 570
Issues: Availability of Modvat credit on rejected goods
In this appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, the issue revolves around the availability of Modvat credit of a disputed amount to the appellants on rejected goods. The appellants had initially imported certain inputs, paid the requisite duty, and claimed Modvat credit. Subsequently, they considered re-exporting part of the consignment due to defects, reversed the Modvat credit proportionately, but did not actually re-export the goods. The main contention was whether the appellants were entitled to re-credit the amount they had previously reversed.
The Tribunal noted that the facts were not in dispute regarding the non-re-export of the inputs. The appellants argued that they had brought back the allegedly defective inputs to the factory and used them in manufacturing final products, justifying their claim for re-credit. The adjudicating authority had disallowed the re-credit primarily on procedural grounds, stating that the proper procedure under Central Excise Rules was not followed. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the claim based on the lack of evidence proving the receipt of goods back in the factory after the failed re-export attempt. This discrepancy between the two orders raised concerns about a miscarriage of justice.
The Tribunal found merit in the appellants' argument and directed a re-examination by the adjudicating authority. It emphasized the need to consider the defense presented by the appellants and the documents submitted to support their claim for re-credit. Additionally, the Tribunal highlighted the relevance of a Board's Circular dated 30-12-1996, which should be taken into account during the fresh decision-making process. Ultimately, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside, and the case was remanded to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision, thereby allowing the appeal.
-
2003 (10) TMI 569
Issues:
Includibility of cost escalation due to exchange rate variation, special packing charges, and bonus claim.
Analysis:
The appellant, a PSU, obtained a clearance certificate to appeal against an order confirming Rs. 69,76,361/- and a penalty amount covering the period from March 1996-2000. The issues in this appeal are the includibility of cost escalation due to exchange rate variation, special packing charges, and a bonus claim. The appellant argues that the bonus claim is not includible based on a Tribunal judgment. They also contend that special packing charges are not includible according to Apex Court judgments and that cost escalation is not liable as per a Tribunal judgment. The appellant asserts that refractory bricks made in special packing and supplied only to PSUs show no intention to evade duty, and the demands are time-barred. The appellant seeks waiver of the pre-deposit amounts confirmed in the order.
The Tribunal, after considering submissions, finds that the judgment in a similar case applies to the present situation. The Commissioner erred in distinguishing another relevant judgment. Regarding the includibility of the cost of secondary packing, a contest is raised, but this issue will be examined later. Given that the appellant is a PSU with permission to appeal from the Committee of Secretaries, the Tribunal decides to waive the pre-deposit amount and stay recovery during the appeal's pendency. Due to the substantial amounts involved, the appeal is scheduled for an out-of-turn hearing on a specified date.
-
2003 (10) TMI 568
Issues:
1. Application for stay of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) based on a strong prima facie case.
2. Rejection of transaction value, redetermination of value under Rule 6b(ii) of Central Excise Valuation Rules, demand for differential duty, and imposition of penalties.
3. Allegation of selling a product at a lower price than the cost of production leading to undue hardship if required to deposit the duty and penalty.
Analysis:
1. The appellant sought a stay of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) due to a strong prima facie case. The Commissioner (Appeals) had confirmed the demand for duty and imposition of penalties. The appellant argued that the rejection of transaction value and redetermination under Rule 6b(ii) was unjustified. The appellant contended that selling a product at a lower price does not imply wrongdoing, especially when all products involved carry the same rate of Central Excise duty. The appellant relied on legal precedents to support their case and highlighted the potential undue hardship of depositing the duty and penalty.
2. The case revolved around the rejection of transaction value by the department, which alleged that the appellant was selling a product below the cost of production. The department demanded a differential duty and imposed penalties based on this premise. However, the Tribunal noted that there was no evidence of financial flow back from buyers to the appellant. The Tribunal found that the appellant had made a strong prima facie case in their favor. As a result, the Tribunal decided to waive the pre-deposit of duty and penalty, staying the recovery pending the appeal's disposal.
3. In the absence of evidence showing any financial benefit to the appellant from selling the product at a lower price, the Tribunal found the department's case solely based on the selling price being lower than the cost of production. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's argument regarding the uniform Central Excise duty rate on all products involved. Considering the appellant's strong prima facie case and the potential undue hardship of depositing the duty and penalty, the Tribunal decided in favor of granting a stay on the recovery pending the appeal's resolution.
-
2003 (10) TMI 567
Issues:
1. Denial of Modvat credit of Rs. 14,154
2. Denial of Modvat credit of Rs. 69,000
Analysis:
Issue 1: Denial of Modvat credit of Rs. 14,154
The appellants contested the denial of Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 14,154, arguing that the goods were received in the factory and used in the manufacturing process, making them eligible for the credit. However, the Revenue department relied on the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, New Delhi v. Avis Electronics (P) Limited, emphasizing that credit can only be availed based on the duplicate copy of the invoice. As the credit in question was taken on a different type of invoice, the denial of credit was upheld by the Tribunal.
Issue 2: Denial of Modvat credit of Rs. 69,000
Regarding the denial of Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 69,000, the appellants argued that the duty-paid capital goods were received in the factory, and they should be entitled to the credit even before the installation of the capital goods. The Revenue department, however, pointed out that the Modvat rules were amended from 1-1-96, requiring compliance with the new provisions, including the necessity of intimating the installation of capital goods. The appellants cited the decision in the case of CCE, Meerut-I v. Modi Rubber Limited, where it was held that if the manufacturer reverses the credit taken before installation, credit can be claimed post-installation. The Tribunal found in favor of the appellants, setting aside the denial of Modvat credit of Rs. 69,000. However, the penalty imposed on this count was upheld by the Tribunal.
In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the denial of Modvat credit of Rs. 14,154 due to non-compliance with the invoice requirements but set aside the denial of Modvat credit of Rs. 69,000, allowing the appellants to claim the credit post-installation of the capital goods.
-
2003 (10) TMI 566
Issues:
Denial of credit claimed in respect of Additional Duties of Excise on inputs; Interpretation of Notification No. 5/94 regarding eligibility for credit; Whether yarn input can be utilized in the manufacture of fabrics exempt from Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles & Textile Articles) Act, 1978.
Analysis:
The appellants were issued a notice denying the credit claimed for Additional Duties of Excise paid on yarn inputs. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the denial based on the interpretation of Notification No. 5/94, specifying that the credit allowed for such duties should be utilized only towards payment of duties under the Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles & Textile Articles) Act, 1978 on final products or inputs. The Commissioner found that since the final products (fabrics) were exempt from these duties, the appellants could not claim credit for the yarn inputs.
Upon hearing both sides, it was established that there was no bar to the eligibility for credit on the duty paid for yarn under Additional Duties of Excise (Textile & Textile Article). The denial of credit was based on the presumption that yarn inputs should only be used in the fabrication of textiles subject to the Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles & Textile Articles) Act, 1978. However, it was argued that if the yarn inputs were not utilized as such or not accounted for, the credit of Additional Duties could be used to meet demands of duty on such inputs. The department's presumption to deny the movement of yarn under Rule 57F was deemed unjustified, leading to the conclusion that the orders denying credit should be set aside.
The final decision set aside the previous order and allowed the appeal, permitting the claimed credit to be transferred and kept in a separate account. The judgment emphasized that the appellants were eligible to maintain the credit amount of duties paid on yarn separately, even if the final products were exempt from the Additional Duties of Excise. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, granting relief to the appellants in this matter.
-
2003 (10) TMI 565
Issues:
1. Determination of the type of yarn produced by the appellant - cross reel hanks yarn or plain reel hanks yarn.
2. Reliability of the examination report by CRCL due to improper sample packing.
3. Appellant's request for total exemption from pre-deposit due to financial difficulties.
4. Decision on the pre-deposit amount and timeline for compliance.
Analysis:
1. The primary issue in the appeal was to ascertain whether the appellant was manufacturing cross reel hanks yarn, as asserted by the revenue, or plain reel hanks yarn, as claimed by the appellant. The adjudicating authority relied on statements from various sources to conclude that the appellant was producing cross reel hank yarn.
2. The appellant contended that the samples for examination by CRCL were not appropriately taken, leading to a potentially inaccurate report. During the hearing, the appellant presented samples of both types of yarn and explained the production process. Despite the appellant's argument regarding packing defects affecting the report, the tribunal found it challenging to accept that a mere packing issue could transform plain reel hank into cross reel hank.
3. Regarding the appellant's plea for total exemption from pre-deposit due to financial hardship, the appellant's counsel highlighted significant financial losses incurred by the company. However, the tribunal, after considering the submissions and case facts, directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 50 lakhs towards the duty liability of Rs. 2.70 crores within two months, indicating that the balance amount of demand and penalty was stayed.
4. The tribunal's decision on the pre-deposit amount and compliance timeline balanced the appellant's financial challenges with the duty liability, providing a specific directive for deposit and reporting compliance. The judgment carefully considered the appellant's financial position while ensuring partial compliance with the duty liability within a specified timeframe.
-
2003 (10) TMI 564
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai confirmed duty of Rs. 3,13,313.30 against the appellant for the period 17-4-1996 to 21-5-1996 as they opted for normal duty rate at the start of the financial year 1996 and could not avail concessional rates thereafter. The appeal was rejected as the proviso of Notification No. 1/93 applied, preventing a reversion to concessional rates in the same financial year.
-
2003 (10) TMI 563
Issues: Classification of "dimethicone" under CETA sub-heading 3910.00 as "silicones in primary forms" or as medicaments under CETA sub-heading 3003.20.
In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, the issue at hand involves the classification of "dimethicone" manufactured and cleared by the applicants under CETA sub-heading 3910.00. The Tribunal notes that the classification under Chapter Heading 39.10 has been confirmed based on a prior decision in the case of CCE, Calcutta v. Metroark Private Limited. The applicants had been filing classification declarations, describing the manufacturing process involving mixing silicon oils of various grades to obtain a predetermined viscosity, filtering, and packing the product. The Commissioner accepted that the product had prophylactic and/or therapeutic use, meeting one aspect of Note 2 to Chapter 30 covering medicaments.
However, the Commissioner raised concerns regarding the non-disclosure of the method of packing, specifically whether the product was packed in bulk, retail packs, measured doses, or for hospital use. This non-disclosure was viewed as suppression by the applicants, invoking the extended period of limitation. The Tribunal found merit in the applicants' argument that the method of packing is relevant primarily for unmixed products suitable for prophylactic and therapeutic uses, not for products with multiple constituents mixed for such purposes. Since the Commissioner heavily relied on a past decision for classification under Chapter 39, attributing suppression to the applicants was deemed unjustified as the Tribunal's decision occurred after the period in dispute. Consequently, the demands in both cases were considered prima facie time-barred, leading to the waiver of pre-deposit of duties and penalties, with recovery stayed pending the appeals.
-
2003 (10) TMI 562
Issues:
1. Denial of Modvat credit based on a certificate issued by Superintendent (Prev.)
2. Validity of duty paying documents for Modvat credit
3. Dispute over duty payment on glass shells stored outside the factory premises
Analysis:
1. The first issue revolves around the denial of Modvat credit based on a certificate issued by Superintendent (Prev.). The objection raised was that the credit taken on the strength of this certificate was deemed inadmissible. The lower authorities contended that only specified duty paying documents could serve as the basis for claiming Modvat credit, and the certificate in question did not qualify. However, the Tribunal found this objection to be unfounded. The duty paying documents used initially to claim credit were not disputed. When a shortage of glass shells was identified, the appellant clarified that the shells were stored outside the factory godown. Subsequently, the credit related to these shells was reversed, indicating duty payment on the cleared inputs. Despite allegations of clandestine removal, the Tribunal emphasized that the duty payment on the glass shells remained valid, even if the invoicing procedure was not followed strictly.
2. Moving on to the second issue, the Tribunal scrutinized the validity of duty paying documents for claiming Modvat credit. It was highlighted that the debit entry made for the duty payable on the glass shells stored outside the factory premises was a legitimate duty payment. The certificate from the Superintendent (Prev.) merely corroborated this payment and its association with the specific quantity of glass shells. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the glass shells were removed clandestinely, emphasizing that the duty payment's legal validity was not compromised by such allegations. The absence of invoicing for the transferred shells was identified as the primary deficiency in the transaction, but it did not negate the duty-paid status of the inputs.
3. Lastly, the dispute over duty payment on glass shells stored outside the factory premises was addressed. The Tribunal concluded that the re-entry of these duty-paid glass shells into the factory for use in the final product manufacturing process warranted the allowance of Modvat credit. The authorities' attempt to disallow the credit was deemed unjustified, given the clear evidence of duty payment on the inputs. Consequently, the appeal was successful, and the Tribunal allowed the appellant's claim for Modvat credit based on the duty paid on the glass shells stored outside the factory premises.
............
|
9911796707
