|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 580 Records
-
2001 (3) TMI 858
Whether the Market Committee can insist that the appellants realise the market fee from their purchasers and pay it to the Market Committee?
Whether the Market Committee has to collect the market fee directly from the purchasers of cashew kernel?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. As can be seen from the preamble, the Act is to provide for better regulation of marketing of agricultural produce. In the Act certain exemptions have been given to producer which exemptions have not been given either to importer or an exporter or a trader. These exemptions, therefore, have been given to producer because the producer is the person who produces the main agricultural produce.
The main agricultural produce, which may be a notified agricultural produce, could then be converted into various other notified agricultural produce/s by subjecting the same to a process or manufacture. It was held that the clause of the Act made it clear that only the actual grower/producer of the natural agricultural produce were to be befitted. Of course, the definitions of the terms in that Act are different. However, in our view the basic principle is the same. It applies to this case also.
-
2001 (3) TMI 856
Whether the appellant, an assessee, is liable to pay any penal interest on the assessed tax under section 23(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 from the date when return was due though neither a return was furnished nor any tax paid on self-assessment basis?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. No doubt rule 21(7A) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Rules, 1963 casts an obligation on assessees to file a return of total turnover and taxable turnover accompanied by proof of payment of the amount of tax due within 20 days of the previous quarter but such a return was not filed by the appellant. A failure to file return of taxable turnover may render the assessee liable for any other consequences or penal action as provided by law but cannot attract the liability for payment of penal interest under sub-section (3) of section 23 of the Act on the parity of reasoning that if a return of turnover would have been filed on the due date then the tax as per return would have become due and payable on that date.
-
2001 (3) TMI 842
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai upheld the certification by the Joint Commissioner of Industries for benefit under Notification 23/89-C.E. The Tribunal referred to a previous case and dismissed the Revenue's appeals, stating that the certification met the notification requirements. (Case Citation: 2001 (3) TMI 842 - CEGAT, Mumbai)
-
2001 (3) TMI 841
The appeal was taken up for disposal with consent of both sides, after waiving deposit. The Commissioner's order was held to be incorrect as the supporting manufacturer was not registered to take Modvat credit. The extended period for issuing the show cause notice was deemed invalid as the department failed to prove why the exemption was not available. The appeal was allowed and the impugned order was set aside.
-
2001 (3) TMI 840
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 162/86-C.E. for exemption on special purpose motor vehicles.
2. Applicability of duty on equipment fitted as machines on motor vehicle chassis.
3. Time-barred demand of duty and suppression of facts by the Department.
Interpretation of Notification No. 162/86-C.E.:
The Appellants claimed exemption under Notification No. 162/86-C.E. for fitting body structures on duty paid chassis for motor vehicles. They argued that equipment should be considered as machines before being mounted on the vehicle chassis. The Senior Counsel highlighted that items like water tanks, foam tanks, and lockers are not machines but parts of body building and fabrication. They contended that the Appellants complied with the conditions of the notification by not paying duty on such items. The Counsel also referenced a Board clarification stating that tanks mounted on vehicle chassis should be regarded as body fabrication. The argument focused on the definition of equipment as machines and the nature of the items in question.
Applicability of duty on equipment fitted as machines:
The Department emphasized that duty exemption under Notification No. 162/86-C.E. is subject to payment of duty on chassis and equipment used in vehicle manufacture. They argued that the Trade Notice must be read in conjunction with the notification. The Senior Counsel countered by stating that the Department was aware of the Appellants' activities and the non-payment of duty on equipment. The discussion revolved around whether the Appellants fulfilled the conditions of the notification regarding duty payment on equipment used in manufacturing special purpose vehicles.
Time-barred demand of duty and suppression of facts:
The Senior Counsel contended that the demand of duty was time-barred as the Department was informed about the Appellants' operations since 1986. They argued that there was no intention to evade duty, as evidenced by the Appellants' correspondence and classification lists submitted to the Department. The Counsel highlighted that the Department was aware of the non-payment of duty on certain equipment used in vehicle manufacturing. The judgment focused on whether the Department had prior knowledge of the duty situation and whether the demand was within the statutory time limit specified in Section 11A of the Central Excise Act.
In the final analysis, the Tribunal found merit in the Appellants' argument regarding the time-barred nature of the duty demand. They noted that the Department was aware of the Appellants' exemption claim and the non-payment of duty on certain equipment. The Tribunal concluded that the Department's knowledge of these facts precluded the invocation of the proviso to Section 11A, rendering the demand beyond the statutory time limit. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Order and allowed the appeal solely on the basis of the time limit aspect without delving into the substantive merits of the case.
-
2001 (3) TMI 839
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of products Camphor Powder (Technical Grade) and Isoborneol.
2. Classification of renamed products Karpooram and Pach-Karpooram.
3. Application of Chapter Notes and HSN Explanatory Notes.
4. Validity of the demand for excise duty.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Classification of Products Camphor Powder (Technical Grade) and Isoborneol:
The appellants, licensed manufacturers of excisable goods, initially classified Camphor Powder (Technical Grade) and Isoborneol under Chapter sub-headings 2914.20 and 2906.90 respectively. However, they later filed for reclassification under sub-heading 3307.41. The Department issued a show cause notice (SCN) and subsequently confirmed the original classification under 2914.20 and 2906.90. The lower authorities, including the Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals), upheld this classification based on Chapter Note 1(a) to Chapter 29, which defines separate chemically defined organic compounds containing permissible impurities. The Tribunal noted that there was no significant challenge to the finding that Karpooram and Pach-Karpooram were essentially the same as Camphor and Isoborneol respectively.
2. Classification of Renamed Products Karpooram and Pach-Karpooram:
The appellants renamed their products as Karpooram and Pach-Karpooram and filed for classification under sub-heading 3307.41. The Department again issued SCNs proposing classification under 2914.20 and 2906.90 and demanded excise duties. The Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals) confirmed this classification and the demand for duty. The Tribunal agreed with the lower authorities that there was no difference in ingredients between Camphor and Karpooram or between Isoborneol and Pach-Karpooram, except in percentage contents.
3. Application of Chapter Notes and HSN Explanatory Notes:
The lower authorities relied on Chapter Note 1(a) to Chapter 29, which pertains to separate chemically defined organic compounds. They held that Camphor (Technical Grade) and Isoborneol were correctly classifiable under CSH 2914.20 and 2906.90 respectively. The Tribunal examined the chemical composition of the products and found that the major ingredients (camphor and isoborneol) were chemically defined compounds, while the minor ingredients were permissible impurities resulting solely from the manufacturing process. The Tribunal noted that there was no evidence to prove that the minor ingredients were deliberately left to render the products suitable for burning in religious rites, as claimed by the appellants.
4. Validity of the Demand for Excise Duty:
The Tribunal upheld the demand for excise duty, noting that the classification under 2914.20 and 2906.90 was correct and that there was no case of time bar against the demand. The products were not shown to be put up in packings sold by retail for use as incense in religious rites, nor were they clearly specialized for such use. The Tribunal also observed that the descriptions under TSH 2914.20 and TSH 2906.90 were more specific than under TSH 3307.41, and thus, classification under the former was preferred as per Rule 3(a) of the Rules of Interpretation.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision to classify Camphor (Technical Grade) and Karpooram under TSH 2914.20 and Isoborneol and Pach-Karpooram under TSH 2906.90. The demand for excise duty was also upheld, resulting in the dismissal of the appeals.
-
2001 (3) TMI 838
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, heard an appeal regarding Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules for explosives used in mining raw materials. The issue was decided against the appellants based on a previous decision of the Tribunal's Larger Bench. The appeal was rejected, upholding the impugned order.
-
2001 (3) TMI 817
Issues:
1. Disallowance of purchases made from M/s. Khan Packages.
2. Add back of expenses on account of wages and salary.
3. Disallowance of travelling and telephone expenses.
Issue 1: Disallowance of purchases made from M/s. Khan Packages
The Assessing Officer disallowed purchases made from M/s. Khan Packages due to the absence of vouchers/bills, treating them as fictitious. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of Rs. 16,627 out of the total amount of Rs. 1,55,867. The appellant argued that the CIT(A) incorrectly mentioned the disallowed amount and failed to consider the genuine nature of the purchases. However, the appellant could not produce bills to substantiate the transactions. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in proceeding ex parte due to the appellant's failure to attend the proceedings. Since no evidence was presented to prove the existence of Khan Packages at the given address or the authenticity of the purchases, the Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the claimed amount.
Issue 2: Add back of expenses on account of wages and salary
The Assessing Officer disallowed a portion of the claimed expenses on wages and salary, alleging fabrication of accounts. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of Rs. 15,133 out of the total claimed amount of Rs. 55,133. The appellant argued that the estimate made by the Assessing Officer was unreasonable, given the turnover of the business. The Tribunal agreed and estimated the wages and salary at Rs. 50,000, reducing the disallowance to Rs. 5,133 based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
Issue 3: Disallowance of travelling and telephone expenses
The appellant did not press the grounds related to the disallowance of Rs. 3,000 for travelling expenses and Rs. 5,000 for telephone expenses before the Tribunal. As a result, these grounds were rejected as not pressed.
In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal by reducing the disallowance of expenses on wages and salary and rejecting the grounds related to travelling and telephone expenses. The disallowance of purchases made from M/s. Khan Packages was upheld due to the lack of evidence supporting the genuineness of the transactions.
-
2001 (3) TMI 816
The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)-IV, Baroda, which wrongly made an addition of Rs. 2,12,000 on account of alleged unexplained investment in shares of the assessee-company. The Tribunal held that the investment in shares by certain individuals cannot be considered undisclosed income based on the Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd. The appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee.
-
2001 (3) TMI 814
Issues: Interpretation of deduction under section 80RR on foreign receipts
Comprehensive Analysis:
Issue 1: Interpretation of deduction under section 80RR
The appeal filed by the revenue challenged the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) regarding the deduction under section 80RR on earnings in foreign exchange. The Assessing Officer contended that the deduction under section 80RR is applicable to income derived by the assessee in exercising their profession outside India, not on the gross receipts in foreign exchange. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the matter based on the interpretation that if the entire foreign receipts are brought into India in foreign exchange, the deduction available would be 25 per cent of that amount. The Tribunal noted that the matter was previously decided in favor of the assessee for the assessment year 1987-88, where it was established that the deduction under section 80RR is allowable on the entire amount brought into India by the assessee in convertible foreign exchange, even if no expenditure was incurred abroad.
Issue 2: Application of Tribunal's precedent
The Departmental Representative argued that the Tribunal's orders for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88, which favored the assessee, should not be relied upon in the current case as the claim was partly disallowed by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment. However, the Tribunal found that the current case was consistent with the view taken in the preceding year, where the assessee had not incurred any expenditure abroad, leading to the decision that the claim of the assessee deserves to be accepted. The Tribunal emphasized that the deduction under section 80RR should be allowed on the entire amount brought into India in convertible foreign exchange, irrespective of whether any expenditure was incurred abroad.
Final Decision:
After considering the submissions and the facts of the case, the Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal reiterated that the deduction under section 80RR should be granted on the total amount brought into India in foreign exchange, following the precedent set in previous years where no expenditure was incurred abroad by the assessee.
-
2001 (3) TMI 803
Issues:
1. Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff
2. Eligibility for exemption under SSI Notification
3. Denial of natural justice in considering submissions and expert opinions
Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff:
The case involved the classification of imported OPTIMAX brand developing tanks for medical/dental X-ray film processing. The Commissioner determined that the goods should be classified under 9010 of the Central Excise Tariff, denying the benefit of SSI exemption Notification No. 1/93-C.E. The appellants contended that the goods were correctly classified under 9022 and were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 111/94. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the Commissioner's reasoning, noting that the nature of the entity, whether an accessory or an independent machine, needed clarification for proper classification. The matter was remanded back to the Commissioner for reevaluation.
Eligibility for exemption under SSI Notification:
The Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the entity assembled by the appellants constituted X-ray film processors classified under 9010.00, making them ineligible for the SSI exemption. However, the Tribunal observed that the Commissioner did not provide clear reasons for considering the entity as an apparatus. The Tribunal highlighted the need for a definitive determination on whether the product was an independent apparatus, which would impact the applicability of Chapter No. 2 or the HSN exclusion clause. Consequently, the Order-in-Appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside, directing a reevaluation with adherence to principles of natural justice.
Denial of natural justice in considering submissions and expert opinions:
The appellants raised concerns about their written submissions not being considered by the Commissioner and the denial of cross-examination of the expert opinion relied upon. The Tribunal acknowledged the importance of natural justice and set aside the Order-in-Original due to the denial of cross-examination, emphasizing the need for a fair process. The case was remanded to the Commissioner for a fresh adjudication, ensuring the consideration of all relevant submissions and expert opinions.
In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Bangalore addressed the issues of goods classification under the Central Excise Tariff, eligibility for exemption under SSI Notification, and the denial of natural justice in a detailed judgment. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of clarity in determining the nature of the entity for proper classification, the need for just procedures in considering submissions and expert opinions, and directed a reevaluation by the Commissioner to ensure a fair and thorough adjudication process.
-
2001 (3) TMI 796
The petitioner claimed ownership of foreign currencies seized from respondents 4 and 5, seeking return of the currency and quashing of the retention order. The seized currency was confiscated from individuals being proceeded against under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. The court found no merit in the petitions and dismissed them, stating that if the money is confiscated, the petitioner can pursue recovery from respondents 4 and 5.
-
2001 (3) TMI 788
The appeal considered whether differential duty credited on 16-12-1996 can be availed under Rule 57A. The appellants, manufacturers of motor vehicles, IC engines, and parts, were availing Modvat credit. The Commissioner did not grant Modvat credit benefit, but the Tribunal found that the duty paid could be utilized. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the Commissioner's decision.
-
2001 (3) TMI 787
Issues Involved:
1. Alleged clandestine removal of cut-tobacco without payment of duty.
2. Validity of demand and penalty imposed under Rule 9(2) and Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act.
3. Application of theoretical weight versus actual weight variance.
4. Invocation of proviso to Section 11A(1) for extended period of limitation.
5. Imposition of mandatory penalty under Section 11AC and interest under Section 11AB.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Alleged Clandestine Removal of Cut-Tobacco:
The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of cut-tobacco and cigarettes and also gets cigarettes manufactured on a job work basis. The Excise Department issued seven show cause notices (SCNs) alleging that 4,22,365 Kgs. of cut-tobacco had been cleared without payment of duty or at a concessional rate for captive consumption, based on the variance between theoretical and actual weights. The SCNs demanded Rs. 3,24,51,134/- and imposed a penalty and interest.
2. Validity of Demand and Penalty:
The Commissioner confirmed the demand and imposed penalties without considering the evidence presented by the appellant. The appellant argued that the entire case was based on hypothetical non-accountal and assumed clandestine removal of cut-tobacco, which was under constant scrutiny and verification by the Departmental authorities. The appellant also cited previous SCNs and adjudications where similar allegations were dropped.
3. Theoretical Weight vs. Actual Weight Variance:
The Departmental Instructions on Cigarettes and Cigarette factory recognize the difference between theoretical output and actuals as an established feature. The instructions admit that no norms of permissible variation could be prescribed and mandate a solution to determine the 'normal working difference.' The Tribunal found no material indicating physical verification of the declared formula or any unaccounted stock during the Anti Evasion officers' surprise visit. Thus, the variance alleged was not abnormal, and the proceedings lacked foundation.
4. Invocation of Proviso to Section 11A(1):
The Tribunal found that the fact of 'variance' was well known to the Department and had been agitated from time to time. The SCNs were barred by limitation as the variance was an accepted industry feature, and no special revelation warranted invoking the proviso to Section 11A(1).
5. Imposition of Mandatory Penalty and Interest:
The Tribunal noted that the major portion of the demand was for the period before the introduction of mandatory penalty clauses under Sections 11AC and 11AB. Since the demand was based on assumptions and presumptions without direct evidence, the penalty and interest could not be sustained.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the orders demanding duties and penalties, allowing the appeal. The findings emphasized the lack of direct evidence, the accepted industry practice of variance, and the improper invocation of extended limitation and penalties.
-
2001 (3) TMI 786
Issues:
1. Interpretation of permitted warehousing period under Customs Act.
2. Calculation of duty payable on expiry of warehousing period.
3. Refund of interest in cases of early ex-bond clearances.
4. Applicability of interest on warehoused goods.
5. Jurisdiction of appellate authority to decide beyond issues framed.
6. Doctrine of unjust enrichment in refund cases.
Interpretation of permitted warehousing period under Customs Act:
The appeals challenged the Commissioner (Appeals) order relying on the Kesoram Rayons case, which held the permitted warehousing period as one month under the Customs Act. The Tribunal emphasized that extension of the warehousing period requires a specific order and cannot be presumed. The Tribunal concluded that in most cases, the warehousing period had expired after one month, leading to quantification of duty payable at the rate applicable on the date of deemed removal from the warehouse.
Calculation of duty payable on expiry of warehousing period:
The Tribunal held that duty should be quantified based on the date the permitted warehousing period ended. It differentiated cases where ex-bond clearances occurred within the normal bonding period, exempting them from interest payment. However, for cases where clearances happened after the one-month period, duty quantification was to be based on the end of the warehousing period, with interest charged from the 8th day of the Bill of Entry return for warehousing.
Refund of interest in cases of early ex-bond clearances:
The Tribunal allowed refund of interest in cases where duty deposited was higher than the duty finally assessed, resulting in no unpaid duty. Such refunds were granted for early ex-bond clearances within the one-month warehousing period, except for specific cases where interest was already recovered by the Department.
Applicability of interest on warehoused goods:
Referring to the Pratibha Processors case, the Tribunal concluded that interest on warehoused goods is contingent on the principal duty payment. Since no further duty payment was required under Section 59A(2) and refunds were granted, no additional interest was deemed payable by the appellants.
Jurisdiction of appellate authority to decide beyond issues framed:
The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner had exceeded the issues framed by relying on irrelevant precedents. The Tribunal found the Kesoram Rayons decision not pertinent to the case, emphasizing the need to stick to relevant issues and decisions.
Doctrine of unjust enrichment in refund cases:
The Tribunal dismissed the argument of unjust enrichment, stating that the refund claims were for interest, not duty. As the refunds were not considered as duty refunds, the doctrine of unjust enrichment did not apply. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals with consequential benefits to the appellants.
-
2001 (3) TMI 785
The judgment by Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved condonation of a delay in filing an appeal due to missing appeal papers filed in December 1994. The Registry's report confirmed the non-traceability of the papers, leading to the delay. The delay was condoned, and the appeal was scheduled for regular hearing on 19-6-2001.
-
2001 (3) TMI 784
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Bangalore allowed 8 appeals filed by M/s. San Engg. & Locomotive Co. Ltd. The duty amount demanded was not quantified, leading to the order being set aside. The Tribunal remanded the case to the original adjudicating authority to quantify the duty amount and pass a new order, providing the party an opportunity.
-
2001 (3) TMI 779
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi upheld the Modvat credit on Electric Control Panels as they are considered capital goods under Rule 57Q. The Tribunal ruled that the control panels are essential for regulating power supply to DC motors and are necessary for effective operation of the rolling mill, thus qualifying for the credit. The appeal against the Commissioner's decision was dismissed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 777
Issues Involved:
Valuation of Cotton Shirts exported under DEPB Scheme.
Analysis:
In this appeal, the issue revolves around the valuation of Cotton Shirts exported under the Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) Scheme by M/s. Dimension India. The Appellants declared a price of US $10.75 per piece for 100% Cotton Gents Shirts in the shipping bill. However, the Commissioner of Customs lowered the valuation to Rs. 65 per piece based on a market enquiry without disclosing the details of the enquiry to the Appellants. The Appellants argued that no evidence was presented to justify the reduced valuation and emphasized that they are obligated to declare a value not less than the export price as per relevant Acts. They contended that even if there was a misdeclaration, no duty should be imposed on them.
The Respondent, on the other hand, argued that in DEPB Scheme exports, the present market value is crucial as the credit against the export product should not exceed 50% of the present market value. They maintained that the show cause notice was based on a market enquiry, which the Appellants failed to rebut. The Commissioner found the fabric quality to be poor and upheld the market enquiry valuation. The Respondent cited precedents to support the position that over-invoicing export consignments is an offense under the Customs Act.
Upon considering the submissions, the Tribunal found merit in the Appellants' argument that they were not provided with the details of the market enquiry, depriving them of the chance to effectively challenge it. The Tribunal noted the lack of transparency regarding the conduct and findings of the market enquiry, which violated principles of natural justice. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision. The Tribunal directed the Authority to disclose the market enquiry report to the Appellants, allow them to make representations, and ensure adherence to principles of natural justice in the proceedings.
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by remand, highlighting the importance of transparency, fairness, and adherence to procedural justice in matters of valuation under the DEPB Scheme.
-
2001 (3) TMI 776
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of the coated cotton fabrics under the Central Excise Tariff.
2. Alleged clandestine removal of coated cotton fabrics without payment of duty.
3. Assessment of duty liability and imposition of penalty.
4. Valuation of the coated cotton fabrics for duty calculation.
5. Applicability of exemption notification.
6. Procedural fairness and adequacy of evidence.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Classification of the Coated Cotton Fabrics:
The appellants contended that their products did not fall under Tariff Item 19(III) as the cotton content in the finished product was less than 25%. They argued that the test reports indicated cotton content by weight varied from 10.21% to 20.42%. However, the judgment referenced the Supreme Court's decision in CCE Hyderabad v. M/s. Fenoplast (P) Ltd., which clarified that the classification should be based on the base fabric's constitution. Since the base fabric was 100% cotton, the coated fabrics were rightly classified under Tariff Item 19(III).
2. Alleged Clandestine Removal:
The department alleged that the appellants received 2,62,691.5 meters of cotton fabric, which was not accounted for in their Form IV register and was used to manufacture coated cotton fabrics that were removed without payment of duty. The Collector observed discrepancies in the entries of the Form IV register and rejected the appellants' claims of defective goods being disposed of through a Dalal. However, the Tribunal noted that the Collector's order lacked direct or indirect evidence proving the clandestine removal of the finished products.
3. Assessment of Duty Liability and Imposition of Penalty:
The initial order by the Principal Collector confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 10,27,225/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh. Upon remand, the Collector confirmed a reduced duty of Rs. 4,50,835.57 and a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. The appellants argued that the department failed to prove clandestine removal and that the Collector should have considered the cum-duty price for duty calculation.
4. Valuation of the Coated Cotton Fabrics:
The department initially valued the coated cotton fabrics at Rs. 10/- per meter. However, the Collector revised this to an average price of Rs. 4.85 per meter, considering the product was generally of a cheap variety. The Revenue appealed against this reduction. The Tribunal found the Collector's valuation method artificial and not fully justified.
5. Applicability of Exemption Notification:
The appellants claimed exemption under Notification No. 128/85-C.E., dated 24-5-1985. The Collector rejected this claim, stating that the alleged suppression of production and clandestine removal occurred before the notification date.
6. Procedural Fairness and Adequacy of Evidence:
The Tribunal emphasized the need for a speaking order that addresses all points raised by the appellants. It noted the lack of evidence in the Collector's order to substantiate the clandestine removal allegations and the arbitrary valuation method used. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Collector's order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision, ensuring all submissions by the appellants are considered and a reasonable opportunity for hearing is provided.
Conclusion:
The appeals by both the appellants and the Revenue were disposed of by remanding the case to the Commissioner for a de novo order within four months, addressing all issues comprehensively and ensuring procedural fairness.
............
|
9911796707
