|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 730 Records
-
2009 (5) TMI 867
Deposit of the tax as well as the penalty - Held that:- In the present case, though respondent No. 2 may be correct in insisting on deposit of the tax as well as the penalty, but the manner, in which the matter has been dealt with, is not at all satisfactory. As a matter of fact, the order, directing payment of tax as well as penalty, which was initially passed, did not even indicate that the Commissioner had considered the grounds on which the prayer for suspension or stay as regards the demand notice had made by the petitioner.
As the petitioner agrees to pay the remaining amount of ₹ 19 lakhs within a period of two months from today. The petitioner also agrees to furnish bank guarantee of ₹ 25 lakhs within a period of two months from today. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this court is of the view that it would be in the interest of justice to set aside the impugned order, dated May 8, 2009, aforementioned and direct the petitioner to deposit the balance amount of ₹ 19 lakhs as well as the requisite bank guarantee of ₹ 25 lakhs within a period of two months from today and as directed hereinbefore, respondent No. 2 shall hear the revision petition and dispose of the same, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date, on which the petitioner complies with the directions
-
2009 (5) TMI 866
Whether LPG cylinders are covered by entry 58 of Schedule B appended to the Punjab VAT Act, 2005 read with item 202 of List attached with that entry and therefore taxable at four per cent?
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, LPG cylinders being used for supply of gas to the consumers are capital goods in the hands of the purchaser-company?
Whether the LPG cylinders are for use in the packing of taxable goods for sale within the State and therefore ITC is admissible to the purchaser who has purchased goods from the appellant?
Whether the appellant has requisite locus standi to move an application before the Excise and Taxation Commissioner for determination of questions under section 85?
Held that:- In agreement with the view expressed by the Tribunal that empty LPG cylinders are not their "capital goods" but stock-in-trade. Accordingly we may clarify that in so far as the manufacturers and producers of the empty gas cylinders are concerned, they cannot claim that the LPG cylinder is either packing material and covered by item No. 202 of the List appended to entry 58 of Schedule B of the VAT Act or that in their hands the LPG cylinders are the "capital goods". Thus answer to the first question is liable to be given in favour of the Revenue.
LPG gas cylinders in the hands of Indian Oil Corporation and other corporations have to be treated as "capital goods" and assessable according to the rate of tax as per the provisions of the VAT Act. Thus the second question is answered in favour of the dealer-appellants and against the Revenue.
While discussing question No. (ii) we have found that the property in the goods is not transferred when gas cylinders are used for supply of gas to the customers.The dealer-appellants would be entitled to ITC once the capital goods are considered as plant by virtue of definition of expression "plant" used in section 2(d) read with section 13(1) of the VAT Act.
The gas cylinders company is sufficiently aggrieved if the purchaser of its product, namely, empty gas cylinders, are given the benefit of ITC or not granted that benefit. The gas cylinders company would be directly affected by any such decision. Therefore, we hold that it has locus standi to file application under section 85 of the VAT Act. Its locus standi cannot be doubted merely because they are manufacturer of empty gas cylinders, which are neither "capital goods" in their hands nor packing materials. Therefore, the question is answered in favour of the gas cylinders company and against the Revenue.
-
2009 (5) TMI 865
The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the appeal in a case involving section 194C(2) as there was no direct contract between the truck owners and the cement factory. The appellant hired the truck owners as sub-contractors to transport cement for which they were responsible.
-
2009 (5) TMI 864
Whether a confessional statement is voluntary and free from any pressure?
Held that:- As the appellants were not found to be in possession of the contraband, the burden of prove never shifted on them. Aappeals are allowed. The appellants are directed to be released forthwith if not required in connection with any other case.
-
2009 (5) TMI 863
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the interpretation of provisions u/s 44BB of the Income-tax Act regarding the taxability of specific receipts related to services provided in connection with exploration and extraction of mineral oils. The key issues include the treatment of reimbursements for expenses and losses, including service tax, repair of machinery, airfare, and cost of tools lost in hole.
Reimbursement of Expenses and Losses:
The Appellate Tribunal considered the case of a non-resident company engaged in providing services to ONGC and receiving reimbursements totaling Rs 4,40,25,412. The Assessing Officer contended that these receipts were chargeable to tax u/s 44BB. However, the CIT (Appeals) held that these amounts should not be taxed under section 44BB, citing a previous decision. The Tribunal, after hearing both parties, ruled that certain reimbursements, including service tax, repair of machinery, and airfare, are to be included in the total amount liable to be taxed u/s 44BB based on relevant case law.
Reimbursement of Cost of Tools Lost:
The Tribunal further deliberated on the reimbursement of Rs. 3,57,52,830 for the cost of tools lost in a hole, received by the company from ONGC. The Departmental Representative argued that this amount should be included u/s 44BB(2) as any sum received is chargeable to tax under this provision, irrespective of its nature. The representative emphasized that the connection with services rendered is the determining factor for taxability. On the other hand, the company's representative contended that such reimbursement is a capital receipt and should not be taxed u/s 44BB. Referring to a previous decision, the Tribunal agreed with the company's stance, stating that capital receipts need not be considered for computing income u/s 44BB.
Conclusion:
After considering the arguments presented, the Tribunal partially allowed the revenue's appeal. It upheld the inclusion of certain reimbursements in the taxable amount u/s 44BB but excluded the reimbursement for the loss of tools, deeming it as a capital receipt not subject to tax under the said provision. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in a similar case to support its conclusion.
-
2009 (5) TMI 862
Effect of a judgment passed in a criminal proceeding on a pending civil proceeding
Held that:- Principles of res judicata are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. Appeal allowed. The impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
-
2009 (5) TMI 861
Whether in view of absence of some symptoms as accepted by the autopsy surgeon, death could be caused by asphyxia?
Held that:- Admittedly, a plastic bottle was found near the cot. It was seen by P.W. 3. However, his statement that he did not find any smell coming out from the mouth of the deceased is difficult to accept. He is not an expert. It is wholly unlikely that he having observed that death had already taken place, he would smell the mouth of the deceased. The possibility that having seen the bottle which admittedly at one point of time contained some poison, appellant’s assuming that she had consumed poison and rushing to the house of the P.W. 3 who might have been in a position to make arrangement for shifting her to hospital cannot be ruled out. In so assuming, he might have committed a mistake but it is also difficult to arrive at a definite conclusion that only because a plastic bottle was found, appellant must have deliberately kept it so as to raise a false plea. We do not think that any such conclusion can be arrived at. If such a conclusion was arrived at, the same would amount to surmise and conjecture. The High Court was considering a judgment of acquittal; it set aside a part of the finding of the learned Sessions Judge. It could not have interfered with the judgment of acquittal if two views were possible. The judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, in our opinion, cannot be said to be wholly unreasonable or otherwise perverse. Circumstances brought on record by the prosecution, in our opinion, are not such which would lead to a definite conclusion that appellant and appellant alone had committed the offence. In the aforementioned situation, the High Court should have approached the case with some caution. Appeal allowed.
-
2009 (5) TMI 860
Whether selection of the Respondent No. 11 as Developer was correct or not?
Held that:- The appellants have failed to bring on record any material to substantiate the allegation that there is a conspiracy to grab the land belonging to the Government of Pondicherry for the purpose of Real- estate of Respondent No. 11 by permitting it to construct five-star hotel, commercial mall, etc. The reply affidavit filed by the Respondent before the High Court, on the contrary, shows that the feasibility report prepared by it indicated that the Port was to be developed in composite manner and therefore project should be commercially viable and therefore considering the enormous cost involved in the development of the Port, certain activities are sought to be undertaken for the benefit of passengers, crew of ships, staff etc. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, this court is of the opinion that the appellants have failed to make out the case that the Pondicherry Government has permitted the Respondent No. 11 to carry on Real-estate business and therefore the appeals should be accepted.
Thus this Court does not find any merit in any of the appeals and both the appeals are liable to be dismissed.
-
2009 (5) TMI 859
Whether the respondent is an NRI?
Held that:- Dismiss these appeals and sustain the impugned order passed by the High Court. However, we direct the Rent Controller to independently examine the applications filed by the appellants under Section 18-A of the Act in accordance with law and also if there are any triable issues between the parties, decide the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within an outer limit of nine months from the date of receipt of this Court’s order and while doing so, the Rent Controller need not be influenced by any of the observations made by the High Court while disposing of Civil Revision Petitions
-
2009 (5) TMI 858
Issues:
- Disallowance of Cenvat credit on tyres based on invoices not in the name of recipient.
- Imposition of penalty for the interpretation of legal provisions.
Analysis:
1. Cenvat Credit Disallowance:
The appeal concerned the disallowance of Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 66,193/- on tyres based on invoices not issued in the name of the recipient. The original authority had disallowed the credit, leading to the recovery of the same amount as duty, interest, and imposition of a penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision. The appellant argued that despite the Tribunal disallowing credit in similar situations previously, the receipt of tyres in their factory was not disputed. However, the Tribunal found that the invoices were not in the name of the appellant nor endorsed in their favor, raising questions on the transfer of tyres from the depot to the appellant. Consequently, the denial of credit and the demand for duty with interest were deemed justified.
2. Penalty Imposition:
The matter also involved the imposition of a penalty for the interpretation of legal provisions. The Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner (Appeals) that Cenvat credit could not be allowed based on invoices not appropriately endorsed or addressed to the recipient. Despite upholding the demand for duty and interest, the Tribunal decided that in the circumstances of the case, where the issue primarily revolved around the interpretation of legal provisions, the imposition of a penalty was deemed unwarranted. Therefore, the penalty was set aside while upholding the duty demand along with interest. The appeal was disposed of in this manner.
-
2009 (5) TMI 857
Whether Grant of a succession certificate by no stretch of imagination, would be a relevant factor for the purpose of determination of the question as to whether the adoption was valid or not?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. The very fact that the respondent had filed an application for grant of succession certificate along with his father, showing themselves to be the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased, is itself sufficient proof to show that he did not claim any benefit in regard to the debts of the deceased as his adopted son or otherwise.
-
2009 (5) TMI 856
Issues involved: Refund claim under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 due to short receipt of goods by purchaser.
Summary:
The appeals were filed against two orders dated 22-5-2008 and 29-2-2008. The appellant, a 1st stage dealer, claimed refund of excess Central Excise Duty paid due to variance in weighbridge at purchaser's end. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim citing contravention of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944. In Appeal No. E/451/08, the adjudicating authority upheld the rejection, leading to the appeal by the assessee. On the other hand, in Appeal No. E/618/08, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order, prompting the revenue to appeal.
In the appeal, the assessee argued that they paid duty based on weighbridge quantity, but the purchaser's weighbridge showed different weights. The appellant received payment based on purchaser's quantity and corresponding duty. The appellant claimed excess duty refund, supported by a certificate from the purchaser indicating cenvat credit adjustment. The appellant relied on a Tribunal decision and highlighted the undisputed shortage in goods received by the purchaser.
The Revenue contended that the weight at purchaser's end is irrelevant for duty discharge and argued against the refund. They claimed that the Commissioner's differing views in the orders were inconsistent. They emphasized that the duty paid by the appellant was not in excess as per their factory weighbridge, hence the refund claim rejection was justified.
After considering the submissions and records, the Tribunal found that the appellant's claim for excess duty refund due to short receipt by the purchaser was valid. The slight shortage in goods received, not exceeding 1% over 7 months, did not render the refund claim invalid under Section 11B. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had not passed on the excess duty to the customer and that the shortage reported by the purchaser was genuine. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal and rejected the Revenue's appeal, disposing of both cases accordingly.
-
2009 (5) TMI 855
Issues:
1. Imposition of excise duty on Erode Rana Textile Processors Pvt. Ltd. (ERTP) for processing fabrics without payment.
2. Penalty imposed on Shri V. Ramachandran of M/s. Nag Enterprises under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (CER).
Issue 1: Imposition of excise duty on Erode Rana Textile Processors Pvt. Ltd. (ERTP) for processing fabrics without payment:
The judgment details how the Department found evidence of ERTP processing fabrics without paying excise duty between 1-12-1996 to 15-12-1998. The investigation revealed that Shri V. Ramachandran of M/s. Nag Enterprises facilitated the processing and return of fabrics to exporters. The Commissioner demanded excise duty of Rs. 4,00,72,500 from ERTP and imposed a penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal had remanded the matter initially due to a violation of natural justice. The judgment notes that ERTP did not challenge the evasion allegations. However, it highlights that most customers of ERTP were exporters, indicating they had no motive to evade excise duty. The judgment concludes that ERTP's evasion was not contested, but the penalty imposed on Shri V. Ramachandran was not sustainable as there was no evidence of his knowledge of the liability to penalty under Rule 209A of the CER.
Issue 2: Penalty imposed on Shri V. Ramachandran of M/s. Nag Enterprises under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (CER):
The appellant challenged the penalty on the grounds that there was no evidence showing his knowledge of the fabrics being liable for confiscation under the Act or rules. The judgment discusses how the customers of ERTP, who received processed fabrics, had no obligation to pay excise duty as the goods were meant for export. It emphasizes that the appellant's involvement in coordinating the processing activity did not prove his knowledge of the duty liability. The judgment highlights that the Commissioner's finding was based on a statement made by the appellant regarding receiving fabrics without invoices, but no concrete evidence supported this claim. Ultimately, the judgment rules that the penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed on Shri V. Ramachandran under Rule 209A was not sustainable due to lack of evidence proving his knowledge of the fabrics' liability to confiscation, leading to the appeal being allowed.
This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI showcases the issues involved, the arguments presented, and the ultimate legal reasoning behind the decision regarding the imposition of excise duty and penalty in the case.
-
2009 (5) TMI 854
Issues: Valuation of imported equipment; Enhancement of value based on another party's import; Inclusion of Project Consultancy Charges in Transaction Value; Applicability of Rule 9(1)(e).
Valuation of imported equipment:
The case involved the valuation of an Autotron Packaging Colour to Colour Registration Control System imported for use in Rotogravure Printing Machines. The Department sought to revise the value based on another party's import, leading to a dispute. The Assistant Commissioner enhanced the value by adding software and Project Consultancy Charges. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the addition of Project Consultancy Charges, prompting the appellant to challenge the orders before the Tribunal.
Enhancement of value based on another party's import:
The Tribunal noted that the imported machines by the appellant and the other party were not comparable, making the value enhancement inappropriate. Citing the Gujarat Ambuja case, it emphasized that charges related to post-importation activities should not be included in the assessable value. Referring to the NCL Industries case, it reiterated that post-importation charges are not includible. The Tribunal concluded that the Project Consultancy Charges, covered by a separate contract and not a condition of sale, should not be added to the assessable value.
Inclusion of Project Consultancy Charges in Transaction Value:
The appellant argued that Project Consultancy Charges, being for post-importation activities, should not be included in the Transaction Value. They relied on legal precedents and the Interpretative Note to Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules to support their stance. The Tribunal concurred, stating that such charges, covered by a separate contract, were not part of the Transaction Value and should not be added.
Applicability of Rule 9(1)(e):
The appellant contended that Rule 9(1)(e) was not applicable as the Project Consultancy Charges were not a condition of sale and were covered by a separate contract. They referenced legal decisions to support their argument. The Tribunal agreed, emphasizing that under Rule 9(1)(e), charges not related to the imported goods' value should not be added. It highlighted the distinction between the charges and the price paid for the imported goods, ultimately setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.
-
2009 (5) TMI 853
Issues involved: Applicability of Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in disallowing Modvat credit.
Summary:
The appeal arose from a remand order directing examination of the applicability of Rule 57F(2) before disallowing Modvat credit. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing, used M.S. Pipes and Pipe fittings as inputs, availing credit. They welded pipes with flanges and cleared them for export under bond. A show cause notice proposed denying Modvat credit, alleging the processes did not constitute manufacture. Despite remand, duty demand and penalty were confirmed. The main contention was whether the inputs were used in the final product manufacture, as required by Rule 57A. The Advocate cited a Tribunal decision and a Board's Circular in support.
The Department reiterated the Commissioner's findings, emphasizing the necessity for inputs to be used in or in relation to the final product manufacture. They argued that the appellants' activities did not amount to manufacture, thus making them ineligible for credit. The Board's circular and case law cited by the Advocate were deemed irrelevant.
After considering both arguments and reviewing the records, it was found that the appellants received duty-paid pipes, welded them with flanges, and cleared them for export under bond. The exported goods were cleared using the credit for duty payment on final products for home consumption. The Tribunal's decision in a similar case was referenced, stating that credit cannot be denied when inputs are removed for export under bond, even if the process does not amount to manufacture. The Board's Circular further supported this interpretation.
The Board's circular clarified that inputs cleared for export under bond should be treated similarly to final products for credit utilization. As the appellants had undertaken the welding process and exported the goods under bond, they were entitled to credit. The Tribunal's decision and the Board's circular provided sufficient grounds to allow the appeal and grant consequential relief.
-
2009 (5) TMI 852
Valuation - loan license arrangement - demand on the ground that the price at which Dr. Reddys labs are selling the medicines from their Depot will be the basis for determining the assessable value and duty payable by the respondents as a loan licensee - Held that: - It is absolutely clear that there is no sale involved in the transaction between the respondent and Dr. Reddys Labs Ltd., hence, the valuation of the goods cleared by the respondents can not be done under Section 4(1)(a) and has to be done under Section 4(1)(b) only - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2009 (5) TMI 851
Issues involved:
1. Allegations of overvalued imports and fund parking abroad.
2. Confiscation of goods, levy of duty, and penal action under various sections.
3. Imposition of penalties on company officials and a cargo agency.
4. Appeal against penalties imposed on the appellants.
Analysis:
1. The case involved allegations of overvalued imports and fund parking abroad by certain companies. The investigation revealed that goods were imported at highly overvalued prices from related companies in Singapore, with some goods never cleared from Customs despite payments made outside India. The companies were found importing non-functional software and dummy ICs for parking funds abroad. Show cause notices were issued proposing confiscation of goods, levy of duty, and penal action under relevant sections.
2. The Commissioner of Customs adjudicated the case, upholding the charge of over-invoicing, confiscating goods, and imposing penalties on the companies and individuals involved. Penalties were imposed on the companies, directors, and a cargo agency. The Tribunal heard the appeals filed by the directors of one of the companies and the cargo agency against the penalties imposed.
3. The Tribunal analyzed the role of individuals in the companies to determine their liability for the alleged illegal activities. In the case of Shri B.B. Gupta, the penalty was set aside as there was no evidence to impute knowledge of undervaluation of imported goods. Similarly, penalties imposed on Shri V.P. Gupta and Shri Madan Agarwal were set aside due to lack of evidence establishing their involvement in activities rendering imported goods liable to confiscation. The penalty on the cargo agency was also overturned as there was no evidence of its knowledge or abetment in the over-invoicing scheme.
4. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed on the appellants, including company officials and the cargo agency, based on the lack of evidence establishing their direct involvement in the activities leading to the alleged overvalued imports and fund parking abroad. The appeals were allowed, and the penalties imposed by the Commissioner were overturned.
This detailed analysis highlights the key aspects of the legal judgment, including the allegations, penalties imposed, individual liabilities, and the Tribunal's decision on the appeals filed against the penalties.
-
2009 (5) TMI 850
Issues:
- Whether zinc ingots supplied to the Indian Navy qualify as ship stores under Notification No. 64/95-C.E.
- Interpretation of the definition of "stores" under Section 2(38) of the Customs Act, 1962.
- Validity of the certificate issued by the Indian Navy regarding the use of zinc ingots.
- Applicability of the exemption under Notification No. 64/95-C.E. to the supplied zinc ingots.
Analysis:
The appeal revolved around the classification of zinc ingots supplied to the Indian Navy as ship stores under Notification No. 64/95-C.E. The appellants claimed exemption under the notification but faced a show cause notice challenging this claim. The Assistant Commissioner initially dropped the proceedings, but the revenue appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) who set aside the order and ruled in favor of the revenue, prompting the appellants to appeal against this decision.
The main contention from the appellant's side was that the zinc ingots were intended for use on board Indian Navy vessels, supported by a certificate from the Navy. They argued that any violation in the certificate issuance should not shift duty liability to the supplier. The appellant emphasized that the ingots were used in the manufacture of sacrificial anodes, crucial for protecting the hull surface from corrosion on Navy vessels. They criticized the denial of exemption based on the distinction between stores and raw materials, highlighting the practicality of processing items before consumption on Navy vessels.
The revenue, represented by the DR, argued that zinc ingots did not qualify as ship stores as per the definition under the Customs Act, emphasizing the distinction between ship stores and general stores taken on board. They deemed the Navy's certificate irrelevant in this context.
Upon thorough consideration and record examination, the Tribunal analyzed the definition of "stores" under the Customs Act, which includes goods for use in a vessel. The Tribunal noted that the zinc ingots were indeed used in the manufacture of sacrificial anodes for Navy vessels, as confirmed by the Navy's certificate. The certificate's clarity regarding the ingots' specific use on Navy vessels was crucial in determining their eligibility for the exemption under Notification No. 64/95-C.E.
Ultimately, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal. The decision was based on the clear indication from the Navy's certificate that the zinc ingots were utilized on Navy vessels, meeting the criteria for exemption under the notification. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the certificate's accuracy in determining the applicability of exemptions, highlighting the specific use of the supplied items on board Navy vessels as a decisive factor in the judgment.
-
2009 (5) TMI 849
Issues:
Violation of Rule 3(1) and 3(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 (CCR) and Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 (CER) by transferring stock of inputs during conversion to Export Oriented Unit (EOU). Demand of cenvat credit pertaining to inputs transferred to EOU, interest, and penalties. Interpretation of Rule 17 of CER regarding removal of excisable goods from EOU to Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) and lapsing of unutilized cenvat credit. Challenge to recovery of cenvat credit balance and penalties. Applicability of Circular No. 77/99-Cus. on lapsing of unutilized credit on conversion from DTA to EOU. Entitlement of EOU to cenvat credit and utilization for duty payment.
Analysis:
The case involved M/s. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. converting to a 100% EOU and facing allegations of violating CCR and CER by transferring inputs without paying duty. The original authority demanded cenvat credit balance and imposed penalties, upheld by the Commissioner (A) except for one penalty. Sun challenged the order, arguing their entitlement to cenvat credit pre-conversion and eligibility post-conversion. The Tribunal found that Sun did not contravene the rules as alleged, as the availed inputs were not removed during conversion, rendering the demands and penalties baseless.
Regarding the interpretation of Rule 17 of CER, the Tribunal noted the amendments allowing EOUs to use cenvat credit for removal to DTA and the lapsing of unutilized credit on conversion from DTA to EOU as per Circular No. 77/99-Cus. Sun contested the recovery of cenvat credit balance based on the circular's applicability post-rescinding of CER '44. The Tribunal highlighted the absence of provisions barring EOUs from availing cenvat credit, citing precedents and CBEC Circulars supporting the EOUs' entitlement to cenvat credit.
The Tribunal emphasized that the rules did not mandate reversal of credit balance on DTA conversion to EOU, aligning with previous Tribunal decisions. Referring to cases like Waterbase Ltd. and CCE, Rajkot v. Ashok Iron and Steel Fabricators, the Tribunal concluded that the demand and penalties were unsustainable, setting aside the impugned order and allowing Sun's appeal based on the legal provisions and precedents cited.
In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis addressed the alleged violations, applicability of Circular No. 77/99-Cus., entitlement of EOUs to cenvat credit, and the absence of provisions mandating reversal of credit balance on conversion. The judgment emphasized compliance with legal provisions, precedents, and circulars to rule in favor of Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd., setting aside the demands and penalties imposed by the lower authorities.
-
2009 (5) TMI 848
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are related to excisable goods falling under Chapter 85 of the CETA, 1985, clearance of goods for captive consumption, demand of duty, interest, and penalty, limitation period for show cause notice, self-assessment scheme, valuation of goods, suppression of facts, extended period of limitation under Sec. 11A, and appeal against the order of the adjudicating authority.
Summary:
Demand of Duty and Limitation Period:
The respondents, manufacturers of excisable goods, were alleged to have short-paid duty for the period from 1-7-2000 to 31-1-2005. A show cause notice was issued regarding the same, but the respondents contended that the notice was barred by limitation as they had been filing returns with the authorities. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand for a specific period but dropped the demand for the earlier period due to no intention to evade payment of duty. The revenue appealed against this decision, but the Commissioner (Appeals) also found no intention to evade duty, leading to the rejection of the revenue's appeal.
Valuation of Goods and Suppression of Facts:
The revenue argued that the extended period for demand of duty was applicable due to the suppression of facts by the respondents regarding the use of goods in their own divisions. However, the respondents maintained that they had been regularly filing returns and providing necessary information, shifting the responsibility to the revenue to seek further details if needed. The Tribunal found that as a Government company, the respondents did not have any mala fide intention to evade duty, especially since the goods were used for captive consumption in electric poles. The Tribunal concluded that the revenue failed to establish a case for demanding duty prior to March, 2004.
Decision:
After considering the submissions and records, the Tribunal rejected the revenue's appeal, finding no merit in their arguments. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the decision that there was no intention to evade payment of duty and that the demand for duty prior to March, 2004 was not justified.
Note:
The judgment was delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT BANGALORE, with Shri T.K. Jayaraman and M.V. Ravindran, JJ. presiding.
............
|
9911796707
