|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 700 Records
-
2004 (3) TMI 633
Issues:
1. Whether refund of Central Excise duty is admissible to the appellant.
Analysis:
The appeal involved the issue of whether a refund of Central Excise duty was admissible to M/s. Aradhana Industries Pvt. Ltd. The appellant claimed a refund of duty paid on account of including the length of galleries in the Hot Air Stenter. The Deputy Commissioner had determined their total capacity of production, including the length of galleries, which the appellants contested based on subsequent decisions by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Supreme Court. The appellant argued that the Deputy Commissioner's order was ab initio void, passed in excess of authority and without jurisdiction, and in violation of natural justice principles. However, the Revenue rejected the refund claim, stating that the order determining the annual capacity had attained finality and was not challenged in any appellate forum. The appellant's contention that the order was void and could be challenged in collateral proceedings was countered by the Revenue, citing the decision in C.C.E. v. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The Tribunal considered both parties' submissions and held that the Deputy Commissioner, in finalizing the annual capacity of production in November 2000, was empowered to do so under Rule 4 of the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant had not challenged the Deputy Commissioner's order, which had attained finality. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument that subsequent decisions by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal or the Supreme Court invalidated the order. It was held that the appellant could not claim a refund based on decisions in other cases not filed by them. The Tribunal cited the decision in Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd., stating that if an appealable order is not challenged, it cannot be questioned later in a refund proceeding. The Tribunal also clarified that the present proceedings were not collateral but initiated by the appellants themselves for claiming a refund after the decision in the Sangam Processors Bhilwara Ltd. case. The Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and rejected it.
-
2004 (3) TMI 632
Issues:
1. Dispute over determination of annual capacity of production (ACP) of a steel rolling mill.
2. Appellants contesting the clubbing of capacity due to the bigger mill being idle.
3. Interpretation of Rule 4 of the Hot Re-Rolling Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997.
4. Relevance of a clarification issued by the Board regarding mills with roughing stand and finishing mills in different sections.
Analysis:
1. The dispute in this case revolves around the determination of the annual capacity of production (ACP) of a steel rolling mill. The appellants, a steel rolling mill, had opted to pay duty on rolled products and declared the parameters of their rolling mills as per Notification No. 32/97 CE. They claimed to have two rolling stands corresponding to each furnace, with the bigger mill having a 'd' factor of 228.6 mm, which they stated was not running for 12 years and only occasionally used for roughing purposes. However, on verification, it was found that the stands of the bigger mill were indeed being used, leading to a disagreement over the capacity calculation.
2. The Commissioner determined the capacity of the appellant's factory based on the total capacity of the two mills installed, despite the appellants' argument that the bigger mill was idle and only its stands were used for roughing scrap in the smaller mill. The appellants challenged this capacity fixation, claiming that the bigger mill's limited use should not be considered in determining the overall capacity. The contention was whether the clubbing of capacity due to the presence of the idle bigger mill was legal and appropriate.
3. The appellate tribunal analyzed Rule 4 of the Hot Re-Rolling Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997, which mandates the Commissioner to determine the total capacity of hot rolling mills installed in a factory. The rule specifies the determination of the "total capacity of the hot rolling mill installed," indicating that where multiple rolling mills are present, the total capacity must be calculated by summing the individual capacities. The tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to determine the total capacity based on the parameters of each mill separately and then aggregating the figures.
4. The appellants referenced a clarification from the Board regarding mills with roughing stand and finishing mills in different sections, suggesting that the RPM of the finishing mill should be used for capacity determination in such cases. However, the tribunal noted that this clarification did not support the appellants' case as it pertained to a scenario with a single mill in two sections, unlike the present case with two independently capable rolling mills in one factory. The tribunal concluded that the infrequent use of the second mill did not affect the overall installed capacity, and thus, rejected the appeal.
In conclusion, the tribunal found no merit in the appellant's arguments and upheld the Commissioner's decision regarding the determination of the annual capacity of the steel rolling mill, dismissing the appeal accordingly.
-
2004 (3) TMI 631
Issues:
Denial of Modvat credit on invoices issued by a registered dealer, affirmation of penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals), prayer for setting aside the penalty based on lack of knowledge regarding dealer's registration status.
Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, NEW DELHI concerned the denial of Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 80,034.64 to the appellants on invoices issued by a registered dealer. The Commissioner (Appeals) disallowed the credit and upheld the penalty of Rs. 15,000. The appellants, through their Counsel, sought the setting aside of the penalty on the grounds that they were unaware of the dealer's registration status before the specified deadline of December 31, 1994.
Upon review, the Tribunal noted that the appellants had received the goods based on invoices issued prior to December 31, 1994, with the dealer having issued the invoices in July 1994. There was no evidence to suggest that the appellants were aware at the time of purchase that the dealer would not register by the stipulated deadline. Furthermore, there was no indication that the appellants had influenced the dealer's decision not to register. The Tribunal found the appellants to be genuine purchasers acting in good faith based on valid documents at the time of purchase.
Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants should not be penalized for the dealer's failure to register with the Central Excise authorities before the deadline. As a result, the penalty imposed on the appellants was set aside. However, the Tribunal maintained the decision to deny Modvat credit to the appellants as per the impugned order. The appeal was thus disposed of with the modification of setting aside the penalty while upholding the denial of Modvat credit to the appellants.
-
2004 (3) TMI 630
Issues:
1. Demand confirmation under Section 11A of the Act invoking the extended period, penalty imposition, and interest demand.
2. Dispute regarding differential price realization on the sale of S.S. patta/pattis or S.S. flats.
Analysis:
1. The appellants were served with a demand of Rs. 90,47,172/- confirmed under Section 11A of the Act, with penalty and interest imposed by the Commissioner. The issue revolved around the duty demand, penalty, and interest imposed on the appellants, which was challenged in the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi.
2. The appellants manufactured stainless steel flats (SS flats) and cleared them to various customers and consignment agents. An additional consideration was realized by the appellants from one consignment agent over and above the declared price, leading to the demand confirmation. The appellants contended that the additional consideration was for stainless steel patta/pattis and not the flats. The main issue was to determine whether the excess price realization pertained to the sale of S.S. patta/pattis or S.S. flats.
3. The Tribunal analyzed the evidence presented by the appellants, including bills and cash memos, which indicated that the consignment agent had sold patta/pattis to customers and remitted the proceeds to the appellants after deducting various charges. It was observed that the excess price realization did not relate to the sale of SS flats but to the sale of S.S. patta/pattis. The Tribunal concluded that the demand and penalty were not justified as the excess payment was for patta/pattis, not SS flats. The appeal was allowed, and the Commissioner's order was set aside.
4. The Tribunal noted that the appellants had consistently maintained that the excess payment received was for the sale of patta/pattis and not SS flats. The evidence provided, including invoices and account details, supported the appellants' claim. It was established that there was no excess payment received for the sale of SS flats through the consignment agent. Therefore, the grounds for duty demand and penalty imposition were deemed invalid, leading to the allowance of the appeal and the setting aside of the Commissioner's order.
-
2004 (3) TMI 629
Issues: Misdeclaration of Maximum Retail Price (MRP) leading to duty demand and penalty imposition.
In this case, the appeal was directed against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected the appeal against the order-in-original. The appellants, who manufacture colour TVs of Videocon and Sansui brands, sell them to M/s. Videocon International. The allegation was that despite instructions to revise the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) upwards from 7-9-1998, the appellants did not comply during the period from 7-9-1998 to 30-9-1998, leading to a misdeclaration of MRP. Consequently, a duty demand of Rs. 2,46,330/- was confirmed under Rule 9(2) along with an equivalent penalty. The appellants contested both the duty and the penalty.
The main defense put forth by the appellants was that they did not revise the prices based on the buyer company's instructions because the cartons in which the TVs were packed already had the pre-revised MRP printed on them. They argued that the clearances were made based on the old price declared on the cartons, and the buyer was not charged based on the new price. However, the Tribunal found this defense without merit. Since M/s. Videocon International were the brand owners of the goods, the price declared by them with effect from 7-9-1998 should have been followed nationwide. The failure to declare the revised prices amounted to a violation of Section 4A of the Act. Therefore, the lower authorities were justified in confirming the duty demand and imposing the penalty.
Despite upholding the duty demand and penalty imposition, the Tribunal noted that the penalty needed to be reduced. It was observed that the goods were removed against proper documents and their full accountal in the statutory record, and the short payment occurred due to the appellants misinterpreting the provisions of the law. Consequently, the penalty was reduced to Rs. 10,000/-. Therefore, the orders of the lower authorities were upheld, and the appeal of the appellant was partly allowed with the modification of the penalty amount.
-
2004 (3) TMI 628
The appeal was filed against an order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and was dismissed as time barred. The appellant claimed delay due to settling other cases under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, but the Tribunal found this reason insufficient. The appeal was dismissed as there was no sufficient cause for the delay.
-
2004 (3) TMI 627
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi upheld the impugned order-in-appeal that set aside the confiscation of goods and reduced the penalty to Rs. 2000 under Rule 226. The respondents were engaged in manufacturing writing and printing paper and were availing exemption under Notification 3/2001-C.E. The excess goods found did not cross their exemption limit, so no evasion of duty was proven. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.
-
2004 (3) TMI 626
Issues: Application for waiver of pre-deposit of central excise duty and penalty.
Analysis:
1. The issue at hand involves an application by M/s. Shivalik Prints Ltd. for the waiver of pre-deposit of central excise duty amounting to Rs. 6,25,000/- and an equivalent penalty. The appellant, represented by Shri R.C. Gupta, Advocate, argued that they were discharging duty under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act during the material period. The revenue rejected their abatement claim for not remaining closed for at least 15 days, although the stenter was closed until August 2001, exceeding the required period. It was highlighted that the compounded levy scheme was withdrawn from 1-3-2001, rendering Rule 96ZQ of the Central Excise Rules inapplicable from that date. The appellant had already deposited Rs. one lac.
2. On the opposing side, Shri Vikas Kumar, SDR, contended that the applicants were obligated to deposit duty on the 15th and last day of each month, which they failed to do. As the stenter remained closed for less than 15 days, they were deemed liable for the duty.
3. After considering the arguments from both parties, the Tribunal observed that the applicants had not deposited duty on the last day of the month as required. It was noted that the applicants could not unilaterally decide on the abatement claim; instead, they needed to apply to the department with appropriate documentation for such claims. The Tribunal found that the applicants had not established a prima facie case for the waiver of the entire duty amount. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the appellants to deposit an additional sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on top of the Rs. 1,00,000/- already paid within 8 weeks. Upon compliance with this directive, the pre-deposit of the remaining duty amount and the penalty would be waived, with the recovery stayed during the appeal's pendency. A compliance report was scheduled for 26-5-2004.
-
2004 (3) TMI 625
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai found that the appellant made a prima facie case for waiver. The appellant argued that C-9 solvent is not a substitute for HSD. The tribunal agreed and waived the pre-deposit condition, allowing a stay of recovery.
-
2004 (3) TMI 624
Issues:
1. Whether woollen fabrics come into existence during the process of manufacture of blankets.
Analysis:
The appeal involved a crucial issue regarding the existence of woollen fabrics during the manufacturing process of blankets. The Appellant, M/s. Amritsar Swadeshi Woollen Mills, contested the Additional Excise duty imposed by the department under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957. The Appellant argued that the blankets produced had predetermined dividing lines and fringes at the loom stage, indicating their nature as blankets from the initial manufacturing phase. The Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the evidence provided by the Appellant, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.
The Appellant's consultant, Shri R.L. Mehra, emphasized that the blankets were manufactured with specific features that clearly indicated their intended use as blankets. The Appellant also highlighted the Revenue neutrality of the situation, stating that any Additional Excise duty paid would be offset by Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. On the other hand, the Respondent, represented by Shri Kumar Santosh, argued that blankets only come into existence after the cotton fabric is produced at an intermediate stage. The Respondent contended that goods consumed for manufacturing another product are deemed to have been removed from the factory as per Central Excise Rules.
After considering the arguments from both parties, the Tribunal examined the process of manufacture as detailed in a letter from the Central Excise Range. The letter confirmed that blankets were directly manufactured on the power loom with fringes or dividing lines, indicating the distinct nature of the products from the initial weaving stage. The Tribunal noted that the process remained consistent since 1997-98, with no transformation of woollen fabric occurring at an intermediate stage. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the Department failed to establish the existence of woollen fabric during the manufacturing process, leading to the allowance of the appeal in favor of the Appellant.
In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment revolved around the critical issue of whether woollen fabrics were present during the manufacture of blankets. Through a detailed analysis of the manufacturing process and arguments presented by both parties, the Tribunal determined that the blankets' distinct features from the initial weaving stage indicated their nature as blankets, thereby ruling in favor of the Appellant and allowing the appeal against the Additional Excise duty imposed by the Department.
-
2004 (3) TMI 623
Issues:
Whether deemed Modvat credit availed by the appellants is admissible and if the penalty imposed on them is sustainable.
Analysis:
The Appellate Tribunal examined the case where the appellants availed deemed Modvat credit of Rs. 24,664/- during January to March 1999 based on invoices from M/s. Dhiman Industries Ltd. The issue revolved around the admissibility of this credit and the sustainability of the Rs. 12,000/- penalty imposed by lower authorities. The denial of credit was due to the supplier not certifying in the invoices that appropriate excise duty had been paid on the goods. However, a decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Vikas Pipe v. CCE [2003 (158) E.L.T. 680] held that buyers under the Compounded Levy Scheme were entitled to deemed credit under Notification No. 58/97-C.E., irrespective of the supplier's declaration. Citing this ruling, the Tribunal found the appellants had a strong prima facie case and granted waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery. The appeal was scheduled for further proceedings on a specified date.
In this case, the crux of the matter was the interpretation of Notification No. 58/97-C.E. regarding the availment of deemed Modvat credit. The lower authorities had concluded that the condition for credit availment was not met as the supplier had not certified the discharge of duty liability on the goods supplied. However, the Tribunal referenced the High Court decision to support the appellants' position, emphasizing that under certain circumstances, such certification may not be mandatory for the buyer to claim deemed credit. This legal interpretation played a pivotal role in the Tribunal's decision to grant relief to the appellants.
The Tribunal's analysis highlighted the importance of legal precedents in tax matters, especially when interpreting complex provisions like Notification No. 58/97-C.E. The reference to the Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision in a similar case underscored the significance of judicial decisions in shaping the application of tax laws. By aligning with the High Court's ruling, the Tribunal signaled a broader understanding of the legal framework governing Modvat credit claims, ensuring a fair and consistent application of the law in similar cases. The Tribunal's decision to grant relief to the appellants based on legal principles established by higher courts demonstrated a commitment to upholding legal precedents and ensuring equitable treatment in tax disputes.
-
2004 (3) TMI 622
Issues: Grant of Modvat credit for capital goods under Rule 57Q
Analysis:
1. The appeal concerns the grant of Modvat credit to the respondent by the Commissioner (Appeals) in relation to capital goods for a specific month. The original authority had denied the entire credit initially.
2. Part of the credit was rejected due to non-pre-authenticated invoices and the goods not being consigned as claimed. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) found the non-pre-authentication to be a technical issue not justifying credit denial, especially with amended provisions under Rule 57T.
3. The Commissioner (Appeals) also upheld the consignment of goods to the assessee, which was not challenged in the appeal. Additionally, the Tribunal's Larger Bench precedent supported allowing Modvat credit on capital goods for the disputed period.
4. However, the issue arose regarding the eligibility of capital goods for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not provide a speaking order detailing reasons for considering the goods used in or in relation to the final product manufacturing process.
5. The impugned order referenced specific cases to support the eligibility of the goods for Modvat credit, but lacked an explanation on the application of these precedents. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to clearly establish how the goods were utilized in the manufacturing process.
6. The Tribunal found the order to be non-speaking on the crucial issue of capital goods eligibility under Rule 57Q. The Commissioner (Appeals) seemed to have misunderstood the criteria, focusing on Rule 57A considerations instead.
7. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the part of the order related to capital goods eligibility under Rule 57Q and directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to issue a speaking order on this specific matter, ensuring a fair opportunity for the assessee to present their case.
This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments, and decisions made by the Tribunal regarding the grant of Modvat credit for capital goods under Rule 57Q in the case.
-
2004 (3) TMI 621
The appellant, a small scale unit, supplied goods to M/s. NOCIL bearing NOCIL's brand name. Revenue authorities treated them as related, but tribunal found no evidence of non-commercial arrangement. Tribunal set aside the order and allowed the appeal.
-
2004 (3) TMI 620
Issues:
- Interpretation of Notification No. 75/87 for duty exemption.
- Applicability of Modvat credit under the said notification.
- Denial of benefit due to payment of full duty on first clearances.
- Legal precedent regarding denial of exemption based on prior duty payment.
Analysis:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 75/87 for duty exemption:
The appellants manufactured air conditioning appliances and parts falling under specific chapters and availed Modvat facility under Rule 57A of C.E. rules. They claimed the benefit of Notification No. 75/87, which provided duty exemptions based on the value of clearances. The notification exempted goods up to a certain value from duty payment, with subsequent slabs attracting a concessional rate of duty.
2. Applicability of Modvat credit under the said notification:
A show cause notice was issued to the appellants alleging they were not entitled to the notification's benefit as they paid duty on the first slab of clearances and availed Modvat credit. The department contended that by not availing full exemption for the first slab, the appellants forfeited the benefit. The Commissioner observed that the appellants did not follow the conditions of the notification by availing Modvat credit for the first slab.
3. Denial of benefit due to payment of full duty on first clearances:
The appellants paid full duty on clearances up to the specified value until their classification list was approved, after which they paid duty at a concessional rate for subsequent clearances. The department argued that paying full duty on the first slab disqualified the appellants from availing further benefits. However, legal precedent indicated that prior duty payment does not automatically disqualify an assessee from claiming exemptions under relevant notifications.
4. Legal precedent regarding denial of exemption based on prior duty payment:
Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, the appellants argued that paying duty on the first slab did not preclude them from benefiting from subsequent slabs under the notification. The Tribunal agreed with this interpretation, stating that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 75/87 for clearances up to the specified value. Consequently, the Commissioner's decision to deny the benefit was overturned, and the appeal was allowed.
5. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and allowed the appeal, affirming the appellants' entitlement to the duty exemption and concessional rates as per Notification No. 75/87.
-
2004 (3) TMI 619
Issues: Modvat credit denial on aluminium foils, closure-stock coil
Modvat credit denial on aluminium foils:
The Appellate Tribunal upheld the denial of Modvat credit on aluminium foils as the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the written additions in the Modvat declaration to include aluminium foils were considered an attempted forgery. Despite no representation from the appellants, the Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner's findings that aluminium foils were not declared, leading to the denial of credit on this item.
Modvat credit denial on closure-stock coil:
Regarding the denial of Modvat credit on closure-stock coil, the Tribunal accepted the appellants' contention that closure-stock coil is not the name of the commodity and is, in fact, aluminium sheets in coil form. Since aluminium sheets were declared in the Modvat declaration, the Tribunal found no reason to deny credit on closure-stock coils. However, due to the absence of a detailed breakdown of credit details, the Tribunal remanded the case for a fresh computation of duty to determine the entitlement of credit on closure-stock coils and the denial of credit on aluminium foils.
The Tribunal disposed of the appeal by upholding the denial of Modvat credit on aluminium foils due to non-declaration and allowing the credit on closure-stock coils, which were considered to be aluminium sheets in coil form. The case was remanded for a fresh computation of duty to adjust the credit entitlement based on the above findings.
-
2004 (3) TMI 618
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Circular No. 20/89 in relation to Notification No. 177/86 and its applicability to Notification No. 5/94.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal by the Revenue against an order passed by the Commissioner. The issue revolved around the interpretation of Circular No. 20/89 in the context of Notification No. 177/86 and its relevance to Notification No. 5/94. The Tribunal had previously addressed a similar issue in the case of CCE, Vadodara v. Modern Petrofils Ltd. where it held that credit of basic excise duty could be used for paying additional duties of excise. The learned DR argued that Circular No. 20/89 was specific to Notification No. 177/86 and could not be applied to Notification No. 5/94, citing the decision of the Bombay High Court in Kalyani Packaging Industries v Union of India.
In its analysis, the Tribunal referred to Circular No. 20/89 and highlighted that it allowed the utilization of credit claimed on specified duties for the payment of any one of the specified duties. The Tribunal emphasized that the circular was intended for general application and not limited to a specific case. Drawing a distinction from the Bombay High Court's decision, the Tribunal upheld its previous ruling in CCE, Vadodara v. Modern Petrofils Ltd., affirming that the credit of specified duties could indeed be utilized for the payment of other specified duties. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal and dismissed it.
This judgment underscores the importance of interpreting circulars in a broader context and applying them for general benefit rather than restricting their scope to specific instances. It establishes a precedent regarding the utilization of credits for specified duties, providing clarity on the permissible use of such credits in excise duty payments.
-
2004 (3) TMI 617
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi heard an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order allowing a refund under Rule 173L of Central Excise Rules. The Revenue contended that no manufacturing activity was undertaken by the appellant on the duty paid goods received in the factory. The respondent argued that repacking and re-labeling of goods amount to manufacture as per the relevant chapters of the Central Excise Tariff. Since the appellant undertook processes on the duty paid goods, the refund was allowed, and the appeal was dismissed.
-
2004 (3) TMI 616
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi heard a case where the appellant did not appear despite notice. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, claimed credit for inputs received from a Re-rolling Mill. The appellant argued for credit under Notification No. 57/97, but the Revenue pointed out duty paid under Notification No. 50/97. The Tribunal found that the appellant could only claim credit for duty paid by the manufacturer of the inputs, dismissing the appeal. (2004 (3) TMI 616 - CESTAT, New Delhi)
-
2004 (3) TMI 615
Issues:
1. Eligibility for Modvat credit under Notification No. 5/94-C.E.
2. Applicability of Rule 57F proviso added by Notification No. 11/95-C.E.
3. Bar of limitation for demand of Modvat credit.
Eligibility for Modvat credit under Notification No. 5/94-C.E.:
The case involved manufacturers of excisable goods seeking Modvat credit under Notification No. 5/94-C.E. The appellants utilized Modvat credit of duty paid on inputs for discharging liability on the final product, which was objected to by the department. The Commissioner of Central Excise held that the extended period of limitation was available to the department due to suppression of facts by the appellants. The Commissioner confirmed the demand, interest, and imposed a penalty. The appeal was made against this decision.
Applicability of Rule 57F proviso added by Notification No. 11/95-C.E.:
The appellants sought leave to raise additional grounds under Rule 11 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, based on the proviso added to Rule 57F by Notification No. 11/95-C.E. This proviso allowed the utilization of specified duty credit on inputs received after a certain date towards payment of excise duty on other final products. The appellants argued that they were entitled to use the credit taken on inputs received after the specified date for payment of duty on other final products, even if the credit was not originally available for that purpose.
Bar of limitation for demand of Modvat credit:
The appellants contended that the demand was barred by limitation as the cross-utilization of credit was known to the department through monthly submissions of credit entries in the register. They argued that the department could clearly see the nature of duty paid on inputs and the credit taken. The Tribunal agreed with this argument, holding that the demand was indeed barred by limitation. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the duty and penalty, allowing the appeal on this ground without delving into the merits of the case.
This judgment addressed the eligibility for Modvat credit under a specific notification, the applicability of a rule proviso added by a subsequent notification, and the bar of limitation for the demand of Modvat credit. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants on the issue of limitation, setting aside the demand and penalty.
-
2004 (3) TMI 614
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi heard the case where the appellants filed for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty. The demand was confirmed due to receiving laminates without payment of duty. The tribunal granted total waiver of duty and penalty for hearing of the appeals. Adjourned for further arguments on 1-6-2004.
............
|
9911796707
