|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 863 Records
-
2008 (2) TMI 794
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad ruled that a letter from the Superintendent regarding a personal hearing is not appealable. The appeal was rejected as not maintainable.
-
2008 (2) TMI 793
Issues involved:
The appeal concerns the utilization of Additional Excise Duty (Textile & Textile Articles) credit for payment of Additional Excise Duty (Goods of Special Importance) Act on the final product. The key issues are the permissibility of cross-utilization under Modvat/Cenvat Rules and the time bar for the demand.
Utilization of AED(T&TA) for AED(GSI) Payment:
The appeal centered on whether the credit of Additional Excise Duty (Textile & Textile Articles) could be used for paying the Additional Excise Duty (Goods of Special Importance) Act on the final product. The appellant argued that prior to March 31, 2000, cross-utilization was permissible under Rule 57F(12) and cited precedent to support this claim. They contended that from April 1, 2000, to June 31, 2001, utilization was allowed under Rule 57AB(2)(b) and subsequent rules. The appellant asserted that the demand for the period from December 1998 to June 2001 was not sustainable due to the permissibility of cross-utilization under Modvat/Cenvat Rules and supported judgments. Additionally, they argued that the demand was time-barred up to July 2000 as there was no suppression of facts.
Commissioner's Interpretation and Tribunal Decision:
The Commissioner interpreted Modvat rules to disallow cross-utilization, citing a Board's Circular. However, the Tribunal, in a previous case, clarified that the word "said" in Rule 57AB did not restrict cross-utilization. The Tribunal emphasized that the plain meaning of the statute should be applied, and the Board's clarification could not aid in interpreting the rule. Relying on the Tribunal's previous decision, the Bench set aside the impugned order and allowed all the appeals, providing relief to the appellants.
This judgment highlights the importance of interpreting rules based on their plain meaning and established legal precedents, ultimately leading to the allowance of the appeals in favor of the appellants.
-
2008 (2) TMI 792
Issues:
1. Whether the appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the Order-in-Original is time-barred or not.
Analysis:
The appellant argued that they had closed their mill in 1997, transferring possession to another entity, and only re-registered with the Central Excise Department in 2005. They claimed the Order-in-Original was not delivered to them, and they received it on 30-12-2005. The appellant submitted an Affidavit and other documents to support their claim of receiving the order late. However, the Department confirmed delivery of the order to the appellants on 1-11-2000, which was acknowledged by them through the Range Office. The record indicated a delay of over five years in filing the appeal beyond the limitation period. The proviso to Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act allows condonation of a delay up to 30 days beyond 60 days if sufficient cause is shown to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal found the appeal to be time-barred, upholding the Commissioner's decision to dismiss it. The appeal was rejected based on the delay in filing.
The Tribunal noted that the appellants had applied for registration cancellation in 1997 but failed to provide evidence of when the registration was actually canceled by the Department. Additionally, no alternate address was given for future correspondence. On the other hand, the Department confirmed delivering the order to the appellants in 2000, which was acknowledged by them. The Tribunal found that the order was served on the appellants in a timely manner, as evidenced by the acknowledgment on the order itself. The Range Office also confirmed this delivery in 2005. The Tribunal concluded that the appeal was time-barred due to the significant delay in filing, which exceeded the permissible limit for condonation under the Central Excise Act. The decision to dismiss the appeal as time-barred was upheld, and the appeal was rejected based on these findings.
-
2008 (2) TMI 791
Issues involved: Clandestine removal, verification of entries in statutory records, quantification of demand, personal penalty, confiscation of goods, interest.
Clandestine removal: The Tribunal observed that if entries reflected in private records were also duly made in statutory records and goods were cleared on duty payment, demand confirmation may not be justified. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner for verification. Despite multiple opportunities, the appellants failed to establish the entries in statutory records, leading to confirmation of the demand of Rs. 31,01,851.
Personal penalty: The appellants were found to be engaged in regular clandestine activities, breaking seals and using equipment for such activities. The Tribunal confirmed the penalty of Rs. 31,01,851, as there was no justification for reduction. However, the personal penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on the partner of the Mill was set aside, as the firm had already been penalized an equivalent amount.
Confiscation of goods: The confiscation of processed fabric and other assets with redemption fines was set aside, as no justification was found for such actions. The Tribunal ruled to cancel the confiscation of fabrics and the redemption fines imposed on lands, buildings, plants, and machinery.
Interest: The Tribunal confirmed the interest as per the law.
Conclusion: Both appeals were disposed of with the confirmation of demand, penalties, and interest, while setting aside the personal penalty on the partner of the Mill and the confiscation of goods and assets.
-
2008 (2) TMI 790
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad recalled an order dated 6-2-2004 dismissing an appeal filed by the revenue due to non-prosecution as there was a representative present on behalf of the revenue. The appeal was fixed for final disposal on 25-4-2008.
-
2008 (2) TMI 789
Cenvat/Modvat credit - Capital goods - job-work - Held that: - if the capital goods are sent to the job workers factory on account of any reasons, Modvat credit should not be denied to the main manufacturer - For the same reasons, no penalties are required to be imposed - except for penalty of ₹ 2000/- on M/s. Vishal Malleables Ltd. for non-maintenance of proper records, appeals are allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.
-
2008 (2) TMI 788
Issues:
1. Discrepancy between proposed Central Excise duty and confirmed Customs duty in the show cause notice.
2. Applicability of previous judgments in similar cases.
Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the issue of a discrepancy between the proposed Central Excise duty and the confirmed Customs duty in the show cause notice. The appellants were initially called upon to explain why Central Excise duty equal to the aggregate of Customs duties should not be recovered for goods diverted to the domestic market instead of being used for export manufacturing. However, the Addl. Commissioner's order confirmed Customs duty on the illicitly removed imported goods. The appellants argued that this discrepancy rendered the order legally flawed. Citing precedents like M/s. Saheli Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE&C, Surat-I and CCE&C v. Suresh Synthetics, the Tribunal found that the proposed Central Excise duty should have been confirmed instead of Customs duty in this case.
2. The judgment also delves into the applicability of previous judgments in similar cases. By referencing the decisions in M/s. Saheli Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. and CCE&C v. Suresh Synthetics, the Tribunal highlighted the necessity of determining Central Excise duty for goods diverted to the domestic market instead of simply confirming Customs duty. Relying on the legal principles established in these cases, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed both appeals in favor of the appellants, providing them with consequential relief.
In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the importance of aligning the proposed duties in show cause notices with the confirmed duties in subsequent orders, emphasizing the need for consistency and adherence to legal precedents in matters of Central Excise and Customs duties.
-
2008 (2) TMI 787
Penalty - Reasonable cause - whether a State Information Commission could impose penalty under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005?
Held that:- As applicant-respondent No. 3 had originally filed application for obtaining information on 16-10-2006 before the petitioner and the information was required to be furnished to him within a period of 30 days as per the provisions of Section 7(1) of the Act. The information was not furnished to him and accordingly he filed an appeal before the Commission which was Second Appellate Authority on 1-2-2006 apparently for the reason that the First Appellate Authority was not constituted. However, the Commission relegated the applicant-respondent No. 3 to the First Appellate Authority and the First Appellate Authority could not furnish information within 30 days and consequently he preferred further appeal. The First Appellate Authority itself was constituted on 2-3-2007 and no first appeal was competent. Moreover, the appeal was filed before the Commission on 20-2-2007 after awaiting period of 30 days from the date of filing the application on 16-10-2006. Even if the period of 90 days is applied which is prescribed for second appeal, the appeal was within limitation. Therefore, the argument raised by the learned counsel cannot, thus, be sustained and the same is also rejected.
-
2008 (2) TMI 786
Valuation of imported goods - aluminium scrap - enhancement in value based upon the value recorded in London Metal Exchange (LME) Bulletin - Held that: - there is no reason for rejecting the transaction value and adopting the LME price. It is well settled law that LME price can be a guide to be adopted for the purpose of enhancement only in those cases where transaction values are found to be incorrect. There is also no corroborative evidence to show undervaluation of the scrap.
Revenue has not produced any evidence to show that transaction value was incorrect or was on lower side - there is no justification for enhancement of the value - appeal allowed.
-
2008 (2) TMI 785
Issues Involved:
1. Denial of exemption under Notification No. 3/2004.
2. Validity of the certificate issued by the District Collector.
3. Non-production of the certificate before the Assistant Commissioner.
4. Imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Denial of Exemption under Notification No. 3/2004:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, was denied exemption under Notification No. 3/2004 on the grounds that the goods supplied were for the Godawari Lift Irrigation Scheme, which lacked a water treatment facility. The Assistant Commissioner held that the certificate from the District Collector was in the name of M/s. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. (KBL) and not the appellant. The appellant argued that since KBL was the main contractor, the certificate was rightly issued in their name and endorsed to the appellant. The appellant cited multiple Tribunal decisions, including Hindustan Colas Ltd. v. CCE and Spic Organics Ltd. v. CCE, which established that exemption should not be denied merely because the certificate was in the contractor's name.
2. Validity of the Certificate Issued by the District Collector:
The Assistant Commissioner rejected the exemption claim because the certificate was not in the appellant's name. The appellant contended that this was a technical violation and cited precedents where certificates in the contractor's name were deemed valid for exemption purposes. The judgment highlighted that Notification No. 3/2004 does not explicitly require the certificate to be in the supplier's name, only that it certifies the goods are for the intended project use. The Tribunal supported this view, emphasizing that the purpose of the certificate is to ensure the goods are used for the specified project.
3. Non-Production of the Certificate Before the Assistant Commissioner:
The Assistant Commissioner also denied the exemption because the certificate was not produced before him. The appellant argued that the certificate was submitted to the Range Officer, who should have forwarded it to the Assistant Commissioner or directed the appellant accordingly. The judgment noted that this was a technical failure and should not result in the denial of substantial benefits. The Tribunal held that the failure to produce the certificate before the Assistant Commissioner was not a significant enough reason to deny the exemption, especially as the goods were used for the intended project.
4. Imposition of Penalty Under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules:
The Assistant Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- under Rule 25, without specifying the clause under which it was imposed. The appellant argued that penalties are only justified in cases of deliberate contravention with mala fide intent, which was not the case here. The judgment referenced several decisions, including Dugar Tetenal (I) Ltd. v. CCE and Windorz Industries (P) Ltd. v. CCE, which held that penalties without specific reasoning are unsustainable. The Tribunal found that the imposition of the penalty was unjustified as the issue was one of technical non-compliance rather than deliberate violation.
Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Satara Division, was set aside. The Tribunal concluded that the denial of exemption was based on technical grounds and not on the substantive use of the goods. The penalty imposed was also quashed due to the lack of specific reasoning and the absence of deliberate contravention by the appellant.
-
2008 (2) TMI 784
Cenvat credit of Service tax - Input services - common use in manufacturing and trading activities - Quantum of Penalty - Held that: - the manufacturer shall not be allowed to take input service credit when he uses the input services in providing exempted services - Whereas in the present situation the appellant was dealing in trading of similar goods. Therefore trading activity cannot be equated with exempted goods or exempted services used in the manufacture or in providing output services - it is clear that the advertisement and other services were utilized for items manufactured and marketed by the appellant, but incidentally the item imported were also sold. On that basis alone the input service credit availed by the appellant cannot be denied because there is no such situation envisaged under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
Extended period of limitation - penalty - Held that: - this is a case of interpretation - the appellant acted with bona fide belief - invocation of longer period and imposition of equal penalty not sustainable.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2008 (2) TMI 783
Issues: Imposition of penalty on the Appellant Company and its Director.
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, heard appeals against the imposition of penalties on the Appellant Company and its Director. The case involved the closure of the factory in April 1998, with the electricity disconnected, and subsequent discrepancies found during a visit by Central Excise officers in February 2002. The Managing Director of the Appellant Company stated that the stock was shifted to another premises under pressure from the owner. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the duty demand, imposed penalties under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and Rules 25 and 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Tribunal noted that the factory was closed since 1998, and the goods were properly recorded in statutory records. The Tribunal found that the Appellants had shifted the stock to another premises due to external pressure, leading to a failure to account for the goods properly. While Section 11AC of the Act could not be invoked, the contravention of rules justified the penalty under Rule 25. However, the penalty under Rule 26 was deemed unnecessary for the Director. Consequently, the penalties under Section 11AC on the Appellant Company and its Director were set aside, but the penalty under Rule 25 on the Appellant Company was upheld. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
-
2008 (2) TMI 782
Issues:
1. Adjournments granted at the instance of the revenue in a matter involving high revenue and remanded by the Apex Court.
2. Laxity on the part of the Commissioners in conducting cases before the bench, resulting in delays and disruptions in the Tribunal's work.
Analysis:
Issue 1:
The case involved a substantial amount of Rs. 3,06,81,239/- and a penalty, including a penalty of Rs. 95 lakhs on the Managing Director. The Final Order of the Tribunal, upholding the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-III, confirmed the duty but remanded the matter for recomputation of duty considering modvat credit cum duty benefit and the time bar aspect. The appellants challenged this decision in the Apex Court, which remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration and disposal according to the directions provided. Despite multiple adjournments requested by the revenue, the Tribunal expressed dissatisfaction with the delays, emphasizing the need for readiness and progress in the proceedings, especially in a matter of such significance and complexity.
Issue 2:
The Tribunal highlighted concerns regarding the conduct of cases before the bench by the Commissioners, pointing out the lack of preparedness and interest in handling heavy matters. The bench, representing three states in the South, faced challenges due to the absence of necessary officials, including the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise (JCDR) and Senior DR (SDR). The Tribunal issued a stern reminder to the Hon'ble Secretary and Chairman to address the issue promptly, urging the Central Excise Department to assign an adequate number of DRs to ensure the Tribunal's work is not disrupted. As a final measure to address the delays and disruptions, the Tribunal adjourned the matter to a specified date, directing the registry to notify the concerned authorities about the situation and the need for immediate action to prevent further hindrances in the Tribunal's functioning.
-
2008 (2) TMI 781
Issues:
1. Duty appropriation and penalty imposition for shortage of inputs and final products during stock verification.
Analysis:
The case involved the appellants engaged in manufacturing M.S. Ingots, Runners, and Risers, where central excise officers detected a shortage of inputs and final products during a stock verification. A show cause notice was issued for duty appropriation and penalty imposition. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand, appropriated the amount, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000 under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this order.
The advocate for the appellants argued that duty was deposited before the show cause notice, and there was no evidence of clandestine removal of goods, thus contesting the penalty imposition. Reference was made to relevant court decisions supporting this argument. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative supported the Commissioner (Appeals)' findings, emphasizing the admitted shortage and contravention of law justifying the penalty.
Upon review, the judge noted that the duty was deposited after the show cause notice following the detection of the shortage by central excise officers. It was observed that there was no tangible evidence of clandestine removal of goods, and the penalty under Rule 25 was challenged. Rule 25 allows penalty imposition for contravention of rules or notifications with intent to evade duty payment. As there was no contravention with such intent, the penalty was deemed unjustified. Consequently, the penalty under Rule 25 was set aside, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.
In conclusion, the judgment focused on the timing of duty deposit, absence of evidence for clandestine removal, and the lack of intent to evade duty payment as key factors in determining the appropriateness of penalty imposition under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001.
-
2008 (2) TMI 780
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad recalled an earlier order dismissing an appeal related to interest claimed on delayed refund, as it did not fall under the provision of Section 35B proviso for duty, fine, or penalty less than Rs. 50,000. The appeal was fixed for disposal on 25-4-2008.
-
2008 (2) TMI 779
Issues:
Review of Tribunal's order based on subsequent decisions.
Analysis:
The judgment deals with a Review of Order on Merits (ROM) application filed in relation to a Tribunal's order dated 9-12-2003. The applicant contended that the Tribunal should have followed the decision in the case of M/s. Ginni International Ltd., confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the Bench, in its order, considered the decision in the case of M/s. Ginni International Ltd. and M/s. Virlon Textile Mills but held that their ratios would not apply in the present case. The Tribunal emphasized that a mistake apparent on the face of the records can only be rectified, and a review of the order cannot be sought under the guise of rectification of mistake. The judgment highlighted that subsequent decisions by the Tribunal in other matters cannot be the sole basis for seeking rectification, especially when the original order is detailed and addresses all arguments raised during the appeal hearing.
The Tribunal reiterated that the appellant had the statutory right to challenge the order before a higher appellate forum, emphasizing that judicial proceedings must conclude, and subsequent orders should not reopen or review earlier decisions in light of new judgments. The judgment emphasized the importance of finality in legal proceedings and rejected the ROM application on the grounds that the arguments presented were repetitive, and the original order adequately addressed all issues raised during the appeal hearing.
-
2008 (2) TMI 778
Issues: Appeal against denial of Cenvat credit for capital goods removed by the assessee.
Summary:
The appeal challenged the denial of Cenvat credit for capital goods removed by the assessee, based on the contention that the goods had been utilized for a long period and their removal did not attract duty payment as per Rule 3(4) of Cenvat credit rules. The Revenue disputed the transaction value used by the appellants for duty payment, instead opting for the value of the goods at the time of installation. The issue had been previously decided in favor of the assessee by the Tribunal in other cases.
The learned counsel for the appellant cited precedents where similar issues were decided in favor of the assessee by the Tribunal, and argued that the amended provisions should have only prospective effect. The Revenue, however, maintained that the amended law required the reversal of credit taken at the time of installation, but allowed for depreciation in the present case.
Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the assessee was eligible for Cenvat credit on the used capital goods sold by them, as established in previous rulings. The subsequent amendment regarding depreciation had only prospective effect. The Tribunal referred to specific cases where similar issues were decided in favor of the appellants, and concluded that the impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
In a separate judgment, the Tribunal analyzed the removal of used capital goods and the application of depreciation. The Tribunal found that the appellants were not required to pay duty on the used machinery sold, as it did not fall under the provisions of Rule 3(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules. The Tribunal also noted that the show cause notice issued in the case was beyond the normal period and lacked justification, leading to the appeal being allowed and the impugned order being set aside.
-
2008 (2) TMI 777
Issues:
Interpretation of assessable value under D.P.C.O. regulations.
Analysis:
The main issue in this case was to determine whether the maximum price fixed by the D.P.C.O. should be considered as the assessable value even if the goods are sold at a lower price. Both the original adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) held that duty should be paid based on the actual selling price of the goods, not the maximum price set under D.P.C.O.
The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on Board's instructions from F.No. 312/1/75-CX.10 dated 8-8-85, which clarified that the provisions of Sec. 4(1)(a)(ii) apply only when the goods under assessment are actually sold by the assessee at the statutory price. If goods are sold at a price lower than the D.P.C.O. price, that lower price should be considered as the assessable value for excise duty payment purposes. The objective of fixing maximum prices under the law is to ensure that consumers do not bear a burden higher than prescribed, which is better served when goods are sold below the maximum fixed price.
The Commissioner (Appeals) also referred to previous legal judgments, particularly the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. UOI and others - 1986 (24) E.L.T. 175 (S.C.) and UOI v. Bombay Tyres - 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1896 (S.C.), to support the interpretation that goods sold at a lower price than the D.P.C.O. price should be valued based on the actual selling price.
Ultimately, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the view of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, finding no error in considering the actual selling price as the assessable value for excise duty calculation purposes.
-
2008 (2) TMI 776
Issues Involved:
1. Short payment of Central Excise duty.
2. Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. Applicability of interest on differential duty under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
4. Determination of value as per Rule 8 of Central Excise (Determination of Value of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Short Payment of Central Excise Duty:
The respondent, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, cleared their goods to other units without sale, requiring valuation under Rule 8 of the Central Excise (Determination of Value of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. During the period from 1-4-2003 to 4-8-2003, the respondent incorrectly calculated the assessable value at 110% instead of 115% of the cost of production, resulting in a short payment of Rs. 2,27,682/-. The respondent, upon being informed by the department, paid the differential duty and interest before the adjudication.
2. Imposition of Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
The adjudicating authority refrained from imposing a penalty under Section 11AC and Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, as the respondent paid the differential duty and interest promptly, demonstrating no intention to evade duty. The department contested this decision, citing that the provisions of Section 11AC are explicit and mandate penalty imposition where there is fraud, collusion, mis-statement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade duty. The department relied on case laws including CCE, Indore v. Deepak Spinners Ltd., which held that duty payment upon being caught by the department is not voluntary, thus necessitating penalty imposition.
3. Applicability of Interest on Differential Duty under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
The respondent contested the payment of interest, citing judgments that in cases of stock transfer where duty is paid before the issuance of a Show Cause Notice, there is no intent to evade duty, and thus, no interest or penalty is applicable. However, the respondent later paid the interest as well.
4. Determination of Value as per Rule 8 of Central Excise (Determination of Value of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000:
The respondent initially disputed the application of Rule 8, arguing that the conditions were not fulfilled. However, to avoid litigation and maintain good relations with the department, they agreed to the valuation method and paid the differential duty accordingly. The short payment was due to a clerical error in calculating the value at 110% instead of 115%.
Judgment Analysis:
The appeal by the department was rejected based on several grounds:
- The adjudicating authority's decision to not impose a penalty was supported by multiple judgments where it was held that payment of duty and interest before the issuance of a Show Cause Notice negates the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC.
- The respondent's actions were transparent, with all transactions conducted in the presence of the department and regular correspondence regarding valuation and interest payment.
- The short payment was a clerical error without any intent to evade duty.
- The department's reliance on cases involving clandestine removal and compounded levy schemes was deemed inapplicable to the present case.
The adjudicating authority's decision was upheld, confirming that the respondent's actions did not warrant the imposition of a penalty under Section 11AC, and the appeal filed by the department was rejected.
-
2008 (2) TMI 774
Issues involved:
The appeal involves the rejection of a claim for refund of duty for the year 1994, raising the question of unjust enrichment under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.
Unjust Enrichment Issue:
The appeal pertains to the rejection of a refund claim of Rs. 37,793 for the year 1994, arising from the finalization of provisional assessment. The key issue is whether the refund claim is impacted by the doctrine of unjust enrichment under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The Central Excise Rules, 1944, specifically exempted refunds from finalization of provisional assessment from the purview of Section 11B. A subsequent amendment in 1999 introduced a proviso requiring refunds to be made in accordance with Section 11B. However, this amendment did not have a retrospective effect. Citing the decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai v. T.V.S. Suzuki Ltd., it was concluded that the refund claim in question is not affected by Section 11B. Consequently, the appeal was allowed after due consideration of submissions from both parties.
Decision:
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai, allowed the appeal regarding the rejection of a refund claim for duty for the year 1994, based on the finding that the claim was not impacted by Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The decision was made after considering the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Rules and the non-retrospective nature of the amendment introduced in 1999.
............
|
9911796707
