|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 567 Records
-
2001 (10) TMI 927
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the demand for customs duty was barred by time.
2. Whether the department was justified in denying the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 64/88-Cus due to non-fulfillment of post-importation conditions, and thereby raising a demand as well as imposing fines and penalties.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether the demand for customs duty was barred by time:
The appellants argued that the demand was barred by time as the imports were made in 1990 and 1991, but the show cause notice was issued only in 2000, nearly a decade later. They relied on Section 28 of the Customs Act, which stipulates a normal period of six months for raising a demand, extendable to five years in cases of suppression of facts. The appellants cited several Supreme Court decisions, including *Miles India Ltd.*, *Doaba Cooperative Sugar Mills*, and *Raghuvar India Ltd.*, to support their contention that statutory authorities must act within the prescribed limitation periods. They also referenced the *Hope Textiles Ltd.* case, which held that no court can direct a statutory authority to ignore the period of limitation prescribed under a statute.
The department, however, relied on the Karnataka High Court's decision in *Medical Relief Society of South Kanara v. U.O.I.*, which held that proceedings for recovery of exempted customs duty or confiscation of equipment do not fall foul of Section 28 if post-import conditions are not fulfilled. The Supreme Court's decision in *Mediwell Hospital and Health Care Pvt. Ltd. v. U.O.I.* was also cited, emphasizing the continuing obligation to provide free treatment to indigent patients as a condition for the exemption.
The Tribunal majority concluded that the demand was not barred by time, aligning with the Karnataka High Court and Supreme Court's interpretations that the obligation to comply with the exemption conditions is continuous. The Tribunal noted that the demand under Section 125(2) of the Customs Act, related to confiscation and duty recovery, does not have a prescribed limitation period.
2. Whether the department was justified in denying the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 64/88-Cus due to non-fulfillment of post-importation conditions:
The appellants contended that the temporary removal of equipment to Manav Charitable Hospital due to ongoing civil work did not constitute a misuse of the exemption. They argued that the notification did not prescribe any procedure for obtaining permission for such temporary removals and that free treatment was provided during the period the equipment was at Manav Charitable Hospital. They also disputed the Commissioner's finding that they failed to maintain accounts in the prescribed format, asserting that no specific format was mandated by the notification.
The department maintained that the appellants failed to fulfill the post-importation conditions, justifying the denial of the exemption and the subsequent demand for duty, fines, and penalties. The Karnataka High Court's decision in *Medical Relief Society of South Kanara v. U.O.I.* was cited to support the view that non-compliance with the conditions warranted recovery of the exempted duty and possible confiscation of the equipment.
The Tribunal found that there was no clear finding on whether the appellants failed to provide the required free treatment to patients, as specified in the notification. The Tribunal noted that if there was any irregularity in not taking permission for the temporary removal of equipment, it might warrant a penalty but not necessarily the denial of the exemption. Given the lack of detailed examination and findings on whether the conditions of the notification were met, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter for reconsideration on merits.
Final Order:
By majority, the Tribunal held that the demand for customs duty was not barred by time. The appeal was allowed by way of remand for de novo adjudication on merits to determine whether the appellants fulfilled the conditions specified in the exemption notification.
-
2001 (10) TMI 926
Issues:
1. Restoration of appeals dismissed for non-compliance of stay order.
2. Determination of furnace type based on modifications made by the appellants.
3. Violation of principles of natural justice in the decision-making process.
Issue 1: Restoration of appeals dismissed for non-compliance of stay order
The appellants had partly deposited the amount and requested an extension of time, which was not accepted, leading to the dismissal of their appeals. However, they pre-deposited the required amount after the dismissal order, complying with the terms of the stay order. The Tribunal accepted the prayer for recalling the dismissal order and restored the appeals to their original number.
Issue 2: Determination of furnace type based on modifications made by the appellants
The appellants argued that the modifications made to their furnace did not change it into a pusher type furnace as alleged by the Commissioner. They contended that the Commissioner did not seek technical opinions to clarify the characteristics of a pusher type furnace, resulting in a violation of natural justice. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner erred in applying the characteristics of a pusher type furnace without expert examination. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner with a direction to obtain expert opinion and re-adjudicate the case after allowing the appellants to present their submissions and evidence.
Issue 3: Violation of principles of natural justice in the decision-making process
The appellants argued that the Commissioner's decision was based on a misinterpretation of the modifications to their furnace and a failure to seek technical expertise. They contended that the Commissioner's reliance on the characteristics of a pusher type furnace without expert examination violated principles of natural justice. The Tribunal agreed with the appellants, emphasizing the need for expert opinion in determining the nature of the furnace and directing the Commissioner to re-adjudicate the case following the principles of natural justice.
Overall, the Tribunal granted the prayer for restoration of appeals, remanded the matter to the Commissioner for obtaining expert opinion on the furnace type, and emphasized the importance of adhering to natural justice principles in decision-making processes.
-
2001 (10) TMI 924
Issues:
1. Confiscation of gold and imposition of personal penalties.
2. Legal importation of gold and burden of proof.
3. Ownership and lawful acquisition of foreign origin gold.
4. Applicability of Customs Act provisions.
5. Role of goldsmith and statutory records in possession of foreign origin gold.
6. Evidence presented and statements made by the accused.
7. Justification for rejecting the appeals.
Confiscation of Gold and Imposition of Personal Penalties:
The judgment concerns the confiscation of one gold biscuit and three cut pieces of gold of foreign origin, along with the imposition of personal penalties on the individuals involved. The gold was recovered from the pocket of an individual working in a shop owned by his uncle. The authorities below had confiscated the gold and imposed penalties, leading to the appeals before the tribunal.
Legal Importation of Gold and Burden of Proof:
The appellants argued that the gold is freely importable into India, and thus, its confiscation was unjustified. They claimed that the burden of proof regarding smuggling lies with the revenue authorities. Additionally, the appellants contended that one of them, a certified goldsmith, is entitled to possess a certain amount of gold legally. They requested the impugned order to be set aside based on these grounds.
Ownership and Lawful Acquisition of Foreign Origin Gold:
The tribunal noted that the appellants failed to provide evidence demonstrating the legal importation of the gold in question. The onus to prove that the gold was not smuggled and lawfully acquired rested on the accused individuals. Statements made by the accused indicated that the gold was acquired without proper documentation solely for profit, undermining their claim of lawful acquisition.
Applicability of Customs Act Provisions:
The gold in question fell under the provisions of Section 123 of the Customs Act, placing the responsibility on the individuals from whose possession the gold was recovered to prove that it was not smuggled. The tribunal emphasized that the mere allowance of gold importation into India upon payment of duty does not automatically imply that all gold in the country is duty-paid.
Role of Goldsmith and Statutory Records in Possession of Foreign Origin Gold:
The argument that a goldsmith is allowed to possess a certain amount of gold was dismissed as there were no provisions permitting goldsmiths to keep foreign origin gold without proper documentation in their statutory records. The directive for the individual to keep the gold in his pocket and leave the shop indicated potential smuggling activities.
Evidence Presented and Statements Made by the Accused:
The tribunal observed that the accused individuals did not contest the recovery of foreign origin gold. Statements made by them acknowledged ownership of the gold, obtained without legal documentation. Their admission of acquiring the gold from a local broker without proper authorization further weakened their case.
Justification for Rejecting the Appeals:
After considering the arguments from both sides, the tribunal found no merit in the appeals. The lack of evidence demonstrating lawful acquisition of the gold, coupled with the admission of acquiring it without proper documentation for profit, led to the rejection of the appeals. The tribunal upheld the confiscation and penalties imposed by the authorities below.
This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the tribunal's reasoning for rejecting the appeals and upholding the confiscation of gold and imposition of penalties.
-
2001 (10) TMI 922
Issues: Modvat credit denial on specific items
The judgment deals with the denial of Modvat credit on certain items, namely Bottom Pouring Set, Roof Set and Mortar, Clay Graphite - Stopper Head, Insulating Sleeves/Calpad, Hot top powder, and Oxygen gas, under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. The main issue revolves around whether these items qualify as inputs eligible for Modvat credit.
Analysis:
The appellants contested the denial of credit on the mentioned items, arguing that they had challenged the Assistant Commissioner's decision before the Commissioner (Appeals) based on precedents like the Shri Ramakrishna Steel Industries Ltd. case. However, they were not granted a personal hearing before the impugned order was passed. The appellants sought an extension of credit on these items, citing Tribunal decisions supporting their eligibility for Modvat credit.
The Departmental Representative (DR) opposed the appellants' plea, contending that the goods in question did not meet the criteria of inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules.
Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal examined the nature and use of each item. The Bottom Pouring Set, Roof Set and Mortar, Clay Graphite - Stopper Head, Insulating Sleeves/Calpad, Hot top powder, and Oxygen gas were identified as refractory materials essential for various processes in the manufacturing stream. Refractory materials have previously been deemed eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57A or Rule 57Q, either as inputs or capital goods, as evidenced by precedents like Steel Ingots Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore and Kalyani Steel Ltd. v. CCE, Pune.
Moreover, the Tribunal noted that Oxygen gas was also considered an 'input' eligible for Modvat credit in previous cases, such as CCE, Chandigarh v. Shiv Industries. Given the established eligibility of the disputed items for Modvat credit, the Tribunal set aside the denial of credit and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants.
-
2001 (10) TMI 920
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata allowed condonation of delay in filing appeals due to Advocate's negligence. The Advocate misplaced appeal-papers causing delay, which was condoned as the applicants were illiterate villagers. The delay was not attributed to the applicants.
-
2001 (10) TMI 919
Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing an appeal beyond the statutory period.
2. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to consider an appeal dismissed as time-barred by the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Interpretation of Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding the limitation period for filing appeals.
4. Reference to conflicting judgments on the issue.
Analysis:
1. The case involves the rejection of a refund claim by the Deputy Commissioner, leading to an appeal filed by the appellants before the Commissioner (Appeals) after eleven months from the receipt of the order, exceeding the statutory six-month limitation period set by Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal as time-barred, prompting the appellants to seek condonation of delay from the Tribunal.
2. The appellants argue that the Tribunal should have the authority to condone the delay and remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on merits, citing a previous Tribunal decision. However, the Respondent contends that the Commissioner (Appeals) lacks the power to condone delays beyond the statutory limit, emphasizing that the limitation period under Section 35 must be strictly adhered to without any discretionary power for condonation.
3. The Respondent further relies on legal precedents, including a Supreme Court ruling, to assert that the power to condone delays lies with the Courts and not with Tribunals or Executive Authorities. The Respondent highlights that statutory limits must be respected, and any appeal filed after the prescribed period should be rejected as time-barred, as observed in various judicial decisions.
4. Due to conflicting judgments on the matter, the presiding Judge refers the case to a Larger Bench to address the question of whether the Tribunal can entertain an appeal on merits when the Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed it as filed beyond the statutory six-month period. The decision-making process is guided by the interpretation of Section 35 of the Central Excise Act and the principles of statutory limitations in appellate procedures, aiming to ensure consistency and adherence to legal frameworks.
This comprehensive analysis delves into the core issues of the judgment, highlighting the legal arguments, precedents, and the need for a definitive resolution through a Larger Bench to address the conflicting interpretations of the law.
-
2001 (10) TMI 917
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Bangalore dismissed the appeal regarding Modvat credit on certain electrical apparatus. The Commissioner's decision to allow the credit was upheld based on the items being considered parts of machines, supported by a clear finding by the Assistant Commissioner and relevant legal precedents. The appeal filed by the Department was found to lack substance.
-
2001 (10) TMI 886
Detention of vehicles - Held that:- Appeal allowed. Appellant assertions made in the petitions are true. Since the relevant forms are not available and have not been printed, the vehicles in question cannot have the obligation of carrying those forms with the vehicle nor the vehicle could be detained for not carrying the forms in question.
-
2001 (10) TMI 881
Whether section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, was unconstitutional and ultra vires - Penalty levy - Held that:- The penalty so fixed is meant to be a deterrent and we do not see anything wrong in this. The quantum of penalty under the circumstances enumerated in section 78(5) cannot, in our opinion, be regarded as illegal. The quantum of tax levied by the taxing statute, the conditions subject to which it is levied, the manner in which it is sought to be recovered, are all matters within the competence of the Legislature, and in dealing with the contention raised by a citizen that the taxing statute contravenes article 19, courts would naturally be circumspect and cautious" as such there cannot, in the present case, be any valid challenge to the rate of penalty provided for in section 78(5) of the Act.
Thus the provisions of section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, are valid and the impugned decision of the High Court in this regard is not correct.
These appeals, except Civil Appeals No. 1321 of 2001, are accordingly allowed. Civil Appeal No. 1321 of 2001 is dismissed.
-
2001 (10) TMI 876
Issues involved:
Rectification of mistake in the Final Order of the Tribunal.
Analysis:
The application filed for rectification of mistake in the Final Order raised several key points. The appellant argued that the Final Order contained errors apparent on its face, including discrepancies in production capacity, peak load time restrictions, and verification of daily production. The appellant also contested the findings regarding disposal of ingots by consignees, power consumption, and the alleged clandestine removal of goods. The advocate highlighted violations of natural justice, lack of cross-examination opportunities, and issues with evidence collection. References were made to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's decisions for recalling orders and extending benefits to the assessee. The appellant emphasized that the Tribunal failed to consider various submissions, evidence, and discrepancies in the case.
The respondent opposed the prayer for rectification, arguing that the power of rectification is limited to correcting obvious and patent mistakes, not debatable points. Citing legal precedents, the respondent contended that the Tribunal's Order was passed after due consideration of submissions and evidence. The respondent relied on judgments emphasizing that rectification is not possible for debatable issues and that the Tribunal cannot review its validly passed orders. The respondent argued that the rectification sought by the appellant goes beyond the scope of correcting accidental omissions and mistakes.
The Tribunal, after considering both sides' submissions, rejected the application for rectification of mistake. It was noted that the application essentially sought a re-assessment and re-decision of the appeal itself, which falls outside the scope of rectification under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act. Referring to the precedent set by the Larger Bench, the Tribunal reiterated that rectification does not entail re-hearing or re-deciding an order, especially on debatable points of law or facts. The Tribunal emphasized that rectification of mistake is not an avenue for recalling validly passed orders or reviewing decisions. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that if the findings or submissions were erroneous, the appropriate recourse for the appellant would be to pursue the matter in a higher forum rather than seeking rectification.
This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments presented by both parties, the legal precedents cited, and the Tribunal's reasoning for rejecting the application for rectification of mistake in the Final Order.
-
2001 (10) TMI 875
The applicant requested refund of Rs. 1 lakh with interest after Tribunal allowed appeal. Dy. Commissioner rejected refund claim as time-barred. Tribunal dismissed application, stating applicant can appeal Dy. Commissioner's decision.
-
2001 (10) TMI 874
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi allowed Modvat credit to the respondents on various capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tribunal found all the goods in question to be eligible capital goods for Modvat purposes based on their actual use in the factory of production of final products. The appeal by the Revenue was rejected.
-
2001 (10) TMI 873
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata set aside the imposition of personal penalties of Rs. 50,000 each on two appellants involved in a smuggling case due to lack of corroborative evidence, granting them relief. The case involved foreign origin goods valued at Rs. 1.33 crore confiscated by the Commissioner, based on statements of co-accused linking the appellants to a smuggling syndicate.
-
2001 (10) TMI 872
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai ruled in favor of the respondents, allowing Modvat credit on invoices lacking some prescribed particulars. The Tribunal found that the grounds for denial of credit were not clearly stated in the show cause notice. As the basic requirements for credit were met and the inputs were received in original packing, the credit was upheld, citing compliance with Rule 57GG. The appeal by the Revenue was rejected.
-
2001 (10) TMI 871
The Revenue's appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, CHENNAI as they failed to serve the notice on the Respondent, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CCE, Hyderabad v. Electrolytic Foils Ltd.
-
2001 (10) TMI 870
Issues Involved:
1. Demand of Central Excise Duty
2. Eligibility for SSI Benefits
3. Imposition of Penalties
4. Confiscation of Goods
5. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice
Detailed Analysis:
1. Demand of Central Excise Duty:
The Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad confirmed a demand of Rs. 2,11,12,227 from BEC for duty payable on finished goods (button bits, hammers, parts of hammer assemblies, and M.S. scrap) cleared without payment of duty during October 1995 to June 1997, in contravention of Rule 9(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Additionally, a differential duty of Rs. 7,72,693 for clearances made during July 1997 to November 1997 and Rs. 31,38,596 for the period April 1998 to February 2000 was demanded, as BEC was not eligible for SSI benefits for the years 1997-98, 1998-99, and 1999-2000.
2. Eligibility for SSI Benefits:
The Commissioner concluded that BEC had crossed the Rs. 3 crore turnover threshold in the preceding financial years due to unaccounted clearances, making them ineligible for SSI benefits for the subsequent years. This was based on evidence from private records and corroborated by statements from various individuals, revealing the extent of clearances and procurement of raw materials.
3. Imposition of Penalties:
A mandatory penalty of Rs. 1,12,95,833 was imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Additional penalties included Rs. 1,50,00,000 on BEC under Rule 173Q, Rs. 40,00,000 on the Managing Partner, Rs. 1,00,000 on a clerk, and Rs. 10,00,000 on a manager under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The penalties were justified on the grounds of deliberate evasion of duty and the clandestine removal of goods.
4. Confiscation of Goods:
The Commissioner ordered the confiscation of various parts of drilling rigs, button bits, and hammer assemblies found at different premises, which were seized during raids. The goods were confiscated under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, with options for redemption on payment of fines.
5. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellants argued that there was a violation of natural justice due to the denial of the opportunity to cross-examine key witnesses, namely G. Ram Murthy and E.V. Subba Reddy, whose statements and private records were crucial to the case. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner had failed to compel the witnesses to appear for cross-examination, which was essential for a fair adjudication. The Tribunal emphasized the need for corroborative evidence, such as electricity consumption and production capacity, to substantiate the charges of clandestine removal.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal found that the principles of natural justice were violated and that the Commissioner had not adequately considered the rebuttal evidence provided by the appellants, such as reports from the Andhra Pradesh Productivity Council and a Chartered Engineer. The Tribunal allowed the appeals by way of remand for de novo consideration, directing the Commissioner to ensure the witnesses' presence for cross-examination and to re-evaluate the evidence in light of the appellants' arguments and relevant legal precedents.
-
2001 (10) TMI 867
Issues Involved:
1. Use of power/steam in processing cotton fabrics.
2. Applicability of Notification No. 40/95-C.E. and Notification No. 41/95-C.E.
3. Allegations of suppression of facts.
4. Demand of Central Excise duty and imposition of penalties.
5. Validity of evidence collected by the Department.
6. Interpretation and applicability of amending Notification No. 83/95-C.E.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Use of Power/Steam in Processing Cotton Fabrics:
The appellants, M/s. Saroj Textiles Ltd., were engaged in processing cotton fabrics with and without the aid of power. They declared that only minor processes like padding, mangling, and drying were done with power, while major processes like dyeing, bleaching, and scouring were done without power. The Commissioner of Central Excise held that the assessee used power for dyeing and thus denied the benefit of Notification No. 40/95-C.E.
2. Applicability of Notification No. 40/95-C.E. and Notification No. 41/95-C.E.:
Notification No. 40/95-C.E. provided exemption from duty for minor processes even when undertaken with power, but not for major processes like dyeing, bleaching, or printing if done with power. Notification No. 41/95-C.E. provided exemption for all processes without power. The Department argued that the appellants had facilities for major processes with power, making them ineligible for exemption under Notification No. 40/95-C.E.
3. Allegations of Suppression of Facts:
The Commissioner concluded that the appellants suppressed facts about using power for major processes from the Department, justifying the demand for duty and penalties. However, the appellants contended that they had disclosed all relevant information, surrendered their registration, and obtained necessary approvals from the Department.
4. Demand of Central Excise Duty and Imposition of Penalties:
The Commissioner confirmed a demand of Rs. 1,74,53,871/- for the period from 1-4-95 to 9-2-98 and imposed equivalent penalties on M/s. Saroj Textiles Ltd. and a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- on the Director. The appellants argued that there was no evidence of using power for dutiable processes during this period, and the Department's case was based on assumptions.
5. Validity of Evidence Collected by the Department:
The Department relied on indirect evidence, primarily an inspection report from the Kanpur Electricity Department, which indicated over-utilization of power. However, this report did not conclusively establish that power was used for dutiable processes. The Tribunal found that the evidence was insufficient and based on assumptions and conjectures.
6. Interpretation and Applicability of Amending Notification No. 83/95-C.E.:
The amending Notification No. 83/95-C.E., dated 24-4-95, restricted the exemption under Notification No. 40/95-C.E. to factories undertaking only minor processes without any major processes. This notification was not discussed in the show cause notice or the adjudicating order, and thus could not be a basis for the present decision.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the Department's case was based on indirect evidence and assumptions without direct proof of using power for dutiable processes during the period in question. The charge of suppression was not substantiated, and the demand for duty and penalties was not justified. The appeals were accepted, and the impugned order was set aside, providing consequential benefits to the appellants as per law.
-
2001 (10) TMI 865
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai waived the pre-deposit of duty and penalty imposed on the appellant. The case involved availing modvat facility while importing goods duty-free under the Value Based Advance Licensing Scheme. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case for a fresh decision by the Commissioner. The appeal was allowed by remand.
-
2001 (10) TMI 838
The appellant sought credit under Rule 57T for duty paid on plastic injection moulding machines. The Additional Collector denied the credit, citing exemption under Notification 1/93. The appellant argued that the exemption did not apply. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the denial of credit was unjustified. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.
-
2001 (10) TMI 837
Issues:
Delay in filing appeal, condonation of delay, duty liability calculation, interpretation of rules and circulars, remand of case.
Delay in filing appeal and Condonation of Delay:
The appeal in this case was delayed by 39 days due to the belief that the Commissioner's order needed rectification before filing an appeal. The Tribunal considered the explanation and condoned the delay, allowing the application.
Duty Liability Calculation:
The appellants had an existing rolling mill with a determined duty liability. They installed a standby pinion stand (Rolling Mill No. 2) in addition to Rolling Mill No. 1, with the same capacity. Show cause notices were issued for recovery of duty for Rolling Mill No. 2. The appellants argued they had not installed an additional rolling mill but an additional pinion stand without a reheating furnace. They referred to a circular stating that in a unit with one heating furnace and two rolling mills, the capacity of the higher mill should be considered the unit's assessed capacity. The Commissioner confirmed the duty demand, citing lack of evidence of payment.
Interpretation of Rules and Circulars:
The Tribunal found that the Commissioner decided the issue without considering relevant rules and circulars, relying on the admission of duty liability by the assessee. However, the appellants had not admitted the duty liability for the amounts in the notice, claiming they had discharged the duty for one rolling mill and were not liable for more since Rolling Mill No. 2 had the same capacity. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner should review the case considering the rules and circular cited by the appellants, granting a personal hearing to the assessees.
Remand of Case:
In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and remanded the case back to the Commissioner for a fresh decision after considering the relevant rules and circulars and granting a personal hearing to the assessees. The appeal was allowed by way of remand.
............
|
9911796707
