|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 658 Records
-
2007 (11) TMI 494
Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of the power of remand of Commissioner (Appeals) after the amendment of the proviso to Section 35A of Central Excise Act.
2. Applicability of previous judicial decisions on the power of remand by Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Determination of the authority to decide on excisability or dutiability in the hierarchy of tribunals.
Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed by the revenue against the impugned order remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority by the Commissioner (Appeals) post the amendment to Section 35A of the Central Excise Act. The revenue contended that the power of remand by the Commissioner (Appeals) was withdrawn after the said amendment, rendering the impugned order unsustainable.
2. The revenue relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in specific cases to support their argument that the Commissioner (Appeals) no longer possessed the authority to remand matters post the amendment. The contention was based on the interpretation of the amended provisions of the Central Excise Act, emphasizing the limitation on the power of remand by the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. The respondents argued that post-amendment, the Commissioner (Appeals) retained the power to pass appropriate orders, including remand, as deemed fit. The discussion revolved around the Commissioner's authority to modify decisions, which encompassed the discretion to remand a case for further consideration.
4. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a specific case to clarify the hierarchy of tribunals in deciding excisability or dutiability matters. The Tribunal highlighted that the Tribunal held the highest authority to determine factual aspects, irrespective of the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision. The discussion emphasized the non-binding nature of the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision on the Tribunal in matters of excisability or dutiability.
5. Considering the precedents set by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, the Tribunal concluded that post the amendment to Section 35A, the Commissioner had no authority to remand cases. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, directing the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeals on their merits in accordance with the law. The appeals were allowed based on the aforementioned analysis and conclusions.
-
2007 (11) TMI 493
Issues:
Claim for deduction of sales promotion activity under "Input Services" definition.
Analysis:
The appellants claimed deduction for sales promotion activity as per the definition of "Input Services" under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules. The denial was based on the ground that the sales promotion commission was not obtained within the factory premises. The Chartered Accountant representing the appellant argued that the issue is settled as per the WZB Order of the Tribunal in a similar case. He contended that the Commissioner erred in requiring sales promotion activity to be conducted within the factory premises, which is impractical as sales inherently occur outside the factory. The commission received was directly linked to Input Services, supporting the appellant's strong case on merits.
The learned DR, representing the respondent, defended the original order denying the deduction for sales promotion activity under Input Services.
Upon prima facie examination, the Tribunal found the appellants eligible for the Input Services benefit related to the commission received for sales promotion. Consequently, the stay application was granted, waiving the pre-deposit requirement and staying the recovery until the appeal is disposed of. The Tribunal scheduled the appeal for further proceedings in due course.
-
2007 (11) TMI 491
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Modvat credit entitlement under Notification No. 5/94-C.E. (N.T.) as amended by Notification No. 14/97-C.E. (N.T.)
2. Applicability of Rule 57B and Rule 57D for availing Modvat credit
3. Benefit of Modvat credit for the period prior to 1-3-97
Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the entitlement of Modvat credit to the extent of 15% ad valorem on Light Diesel Oil (LDO) used as fuel for generating electricity for manufacturing final products within the factory. The relevant Notifications and Finance Act provisions restricted the admissible credit to 10% ad valorem. The lower appellate authority favored the assessee for the period from 1-3-97, citing Rule 57B, which allowed Modvat credit despite the restriction under Rule 57A.
2. The Tribunal analyzed Rule 57B and found that Modvat credit was admissible for inputs used in generating electricity for manufacturing final products even for the period from 1-3-97. The appellate authority's decision on this legal position was unchallenged by the department. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the Revenue could not deny the benefit of the relevant proviso under Rule 57D to the assessee for the period prior to 1-3-97. This decision was reached after considering submissions from both sides.
3. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, granting a waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery concerning the duty amount. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court, providing clarity on the interpretation of Modvat credit entitlement and the application of relevant rules for availing such benefits in the given scenario.
-
2007 (11) TMI 490
Issues: Claim for interest on Cenvat credit amount raised before lower appellate authority; Error in final order regarding the claim for interest; Whether interest on Cenvat credit is a consequential relief.
Analysis:
1. The appellants filed an application claiming a mistake apparent from the record in the final order of the Tribunal. The appeal was related to the transfer of unutilized credit during the shifting of the plant and machinery. The appellants argued that they had indeed claimed interest on the Cenvat credit amount before the lower appellate authority, contrary to the observation in the final order. The Tribunal acknowledged the error in its observation and agreed that the claim for interest was made before the lower appellate authority. However, the appellants did not specifically claim interest before the Tribunal, and it was not raised in the memorandum of appeal against the non-grant of Cenvat credit with interest. The Tribunal noted that the consultant for the appellants did argue for interest during the final hearing, but the specific ground for interest was not raised in the appeal.
2. The Tribunal rejected the argument that interest on Cenvat credit is a consequential relief that should be discerned from the prayer for consequential relief in the memorandum of appeal. The Tribunal emphasized that no specific ground for interest was raised in the appeal, and the claim for interest was not part of the relief sought in the appeal. The Tribunal clarified that the appeal was specifically for the transfer of unutilized credit, and once that relief was granted, any other relief like interest on Cenvat credit cannot be considered as consequential relief.
3. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the application only to the extent of deleting and modifying certain sentences in the final order to rectify the error regarding the claim for interest. The Tribunal maintained that interest on Cenvat credit was not a relief sought in the appeal and could not be considered a consequential relief to the main relief granted, which was the transfer of unutilized credit. The judgment clarified the distinction between the relief sought in the appeal and additional claims made during the hearing, emphasizing the importance of specific grounds and prayers in the appeal process.
-
2007 (11) TMI 489
Contempt of court - Civil contempt - Delay in compliance with Court’s direction - Held that:- In the instant case, it was not proper on the part of the authorities to have insisted on the petitioner approaching them with the draft of the amendment to the licence. Although, it was none of his duty, the petitioner approached them. However, it is unfortunate that they chose to treat the petitioner’s request in a casual manner.
In the result, contempt petition is dismissed but with strong deprecation of the conduct of the Joint Director of Foreign Trade and the other concerned Authorities. it is hoped that they do not repeat their acts in future and take a lesson from this case. Although the contempt petition is dismissed by accepting the explanation and holding that the delay was not intentional, it is directed that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and the condemnor to pay costs to the petitioner, quantified at ₹ 15,000/-. Costs to be paid within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
-
2007 (11) TMI 488
The appeal was against Order-in-Appeal No. SVS/107/NGP-II/2007, dated 23-1-2007. The issue was non-imposition of penalty on the respondent for short payment of duty. Both lower authorities concluded that the respondent was not aware of the duty evasion intention by the supplier. The appeal was rejected, and lower authorities' orders were upheld.
-
2007 (11) TMI 487
Cenvat/Modvat credit - Capital goods - Reversal of credit - Held that: - the respondent cleared the capital goods under Rule 3(4) of CCR, 2002. Rule 3(4) of CCR, 2002 provides that when inputs or capital goods on which Cenvat credit has been taken are removed as such from the factory, the manufacturer of the final products shall pay an amount equal to the credit availed in respect of such inputs of capital goods and such removal shall be made under the cover of an invoice referred to in Rule 7 - there is no dispute that the capital goods were cleared in the month of May, 2003. Therefore, Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 would be followed at the time of clearance of the said goods - appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue.
-
2007 (11) TMI 486
Issues:
- Imposition of personal penalty on silver bar and silver chorsas
- Dismissal of appeal on the ground of time-bar
- Restoration of appeal by the High Court
- Tribunal's authority to consider merits of the case
Imposition of personal penalty on silver bar and silver chorsas:
The appellant was held liable for personal penalty on confiscated silver items. The adjudication order was passed in 1990. The appeal to the first appellate authority was dismissed as time-barred after 9 years and 2 months. Subsequently, the Tribunal also dismissed the appeal. The appellant then approached the High Court, which directed the Tribunal to hear the appeal strictly in accordance with the law. The High Court found no negligence on the appellant's part due to wrong advice from their advocate.
Dismissal of appeal on the ground of time-bar:
The first appellate authority dismissed the appeal as time-barred, leading to subsequent dismissals by the Tribunal. However, the High Court, considering the circumstances and lack of negligence on the appellant's part, directed the Tribunal to hear the appeal on its merits.
Restoration of appeal by the High Court:
The High Court, in a writ petition, directed the Tribunal to hear the appeal based on the appellant's claim of being misled by their advocate. The High Court found no negligence on the appellant's part and directed the Tribunal to proceed with the appeal.
Tribunal's authority to consider merits of the case:
The Tribunal was directed by the High Court to hear the appeal strictly in accordance with the law. However, as the Commissioner (Appeals) had not passed a speaking order on merits, the Tribunal could not consider the merits of the case. The Tribunal followed the precedent set by the Supreme Court, which stated that if the lower authority had not decided on merits, the Tribunal should not do so either. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) to hear and decide the appeal on merits within three weeks.
This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of personal penalty imposition, time-bar dismissal, High Court's restoration of the appeal, and the Tribunal's authority to consider the merits of the case based on legal precedents and directions from higher courts.
-
2007 (11) TMI 485
Ducts - Air-conditioning equipments - Parts thereof - Classification - Held that: - there is a Board Circular issued under 37(B) in Order No. 58/01/02/C.E., dated 15-11-02 which takes a view that the ducts are part and parcel of Refrigeration/Air Conditioning Plants - reliance placed in the appellant own case ETA ENGG. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE [2005 (8) TMI 260 - CESTAT, BANGALORE], wherein it has been upheld that the ducts fabricated out of GI sheets are classifiable under heading 73.08 of the Central Excise Tariff as part and parcel of air-conditioning system - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2007 (11) TMI 484
Issues:
1. Related person valuation under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Re-determination of duty liability based on Rule 9 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000.
3. Treatment of waste in the assessable value calculation.
4. Validity of demand without proper proposal in the show cause notice.
Analysis:
1. The judgment dealt with the issue of related person valuation under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. M/s. K.G. Naidu Mills (KGNM) and M/s. K.G. Denim Ltd. (KGDL) were considered related persons for valuation purposes. KGNM manufactured cotton yarn for KGDL on a job work basis. Duty was paid following the formula from a previous Supreme Court case.
2. The next issue involved the re-determination of duty liability based on Rule 9 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000. A Show Cause Notice was issued proposing to re-determine duty liability. The original authority dropped the proposed demand but confirmed a differential duty demand and interest. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, focusing on the incorrect treatment of waste in the assessable value calculation.
3. The treatment of waste in the assessable value calculation was a crucial point of contention. The Commissioner found it incorrect to abate the proceeds of waste returned to the principal manufacturer. The Ld. Consultant argued that the demand lacked an enabling proposal in the show cause notice, challenging the validity of the impugned order.
4. Lastly, the validity of the demand without a proper proposal in the show cause notice was addressed. The Ld. Consultant contended that the demand was not supported by a proper proposal in the notice. The Tribunal reviewed the submissions and case records. It was noted that the show cause notice did not contain a proposal to demand duty on any other ground. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
In conclusion, the judgment provided a detailed analysis of the issues related to valuation, duty liability determination, treatment of waste in assessable value calculation, and the necessity of a proper proposal in a show cause notice. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the impugned order was based on the lack of a supporting proposal in the notice, highlighting the importance of procedural fairness in tax matters.
-
2007 (11) TMI 483
Issues:
Remission application rejection based on storage loss of molasses during sugar manufacturing.
Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the rejection of a remission application by the appellants engaged in sugar manufacturing due to the storage loss of molasses in steel tanks. The appellants reported a loss of 110 tonnes of molasses, attributing it to storage loss, and requested remission based on the loss being less than 2%. The revenue contended that the appellants did not meet the conditions of the Trade notice. The Commissioner, in the impugned order, noted the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the loss and rejected the remission application.
Upon review, it was found that the appellants had not mentioned the cause of loss at any stage, leading to the rejection of the remission application. However, a Board circular dated 18-7-1983 addressed the loss of up to 2% in molasses stored in kuchha pits or steel tanks, stating that such loss is condonable. Considering this circular, it was determined that since the storage loss reported by the appellants was less than 2%, their contention had merit. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The decision was announced and pronounced in open court.
-
2007 (11) TMI 482
Issues:
1. Import of medical equipment - classification as capital goods.
2. Interpretation of Foreign Trade Policy regarding import licensing requirements.
3. Confiscation of goods, imposition of redemption fine, and penalty under Customs Act.
Analysis:
1. The appellants imported "GE Spiral CT Scanner" and MRI system MRP-7000, which were challenged by the Department for not being classified as capital goods and requiring a license. The Commissioner held that the items needed a license for import and were liable for confiscation, imposing fines and penalties. The appellants contested this before the Tribunal.
2. The Revenue argued that the imported medical equipment did not qualify as capital goods under the Foreign Trade Policy, referencing Para 9.52 stating that services must earn foreign exchange to be considered capital goods. The Commissioner upheld this view, leading to the confiscation of goods and penalties. The appellants, through their Advocate, argued that the equipment fell under the definition of capital goods as per Para 9.12 of the Foreign Trade Policy, especially since they were used for medical services and less than 10 years old.
3. Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal analyzed the definition of capital goods under Para 9.12, which includes equipment required for rendering services, such as medical services. The Tribunal found that the medical equipment imported could be classified as capital goods under this definition and were exempt from licensing requirements. The reliance on Para 9.52 was deemed misplaced, as it did not mandate earning foreign exchange for services. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's orders, ruling in favor of the appellants and allowing the appeals with consequential relief.
-
2007 (11) TMI 481
Issues: Lack of evidence in the impugned order to support the demand confirmation, penalty imposition, and interest charging.
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Kolkata, involved a case where the impugned order was found to be deficient in providing substantial evidence to support the demand confirmation of Rs. 24,09,797/-, penalty imposition, and interest charging. The order was criticized for being superficial and failing to disclose the basis for the decisions made. The Appellants, engaged in manufacturing food products under the brand name "National's," argued that the allegations against them regarding another company using the same brand name lacked substantiation. The Show Cause Notice did not present concrete evidence to support the claims made, and the order by the Adjudicating Authority was deemed short and lacking in evidentiary support. The Tribunal noted the absence of evidence regarding the alleged use of the term "National" in the Appellants' advertisements. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, stating that it could not be sustained due to the lack of evidence provided. The appeal was allowed, emphasizing the importance of evidence and substantiation in such cases. The judgment highlighted the necessity for thorough examination and substantiation of allegations before confirming demands, imposing penalties, and charging interest in similar cases.
-
2007 (11) TMI 480
Issues: Classification of goods under tariff entry Heading 70.10 for duty assessment.
In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Kolkata, the issue revolved around the classification of goods under tariff entry Heading 70.10 for duty assessment. The appellants claimed the goods to be Founts for kerosene wick lamps and glass chimneys for lanterns. The relevant tariff entry under Heading 70.10 specifically included glass founts for kerosene wick lamps and glass chimneys for lanterns. The tariff rate of duty for these items was nil due to their essential use by the poorest section of society.
The appellants argued that no dispute was raised by the Department regarding the classification of these items before 1-4-03. However, for the period from 1-4-2003 to 31-3-2004, the Department requested end-use certificates for these items and denied the nil rate of duty. The appellants contended that the glass items in question were solely for kerosene lamps and lanterns with no alternative use. They emphasized that the Department lacked any evidence to support a different use of these items.
Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal found that the Department's actions were arbitrary as they had consistently allowed nil duty assessment for the impugned goods previously. The Tribunal noted that the tariff itself did not mandate the need for end-use certificates. Furthermore, the Department failed to provide any evidence demonstrating an alternative use for the glass items apart from kerosene lamps and lanterns. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the impugned order, waiving the predeposit requirement, and allowing the appeal. The judgment highlighted the importance of evidence and consistency in duty assessment decisions by the Department.
-
2007 (11) TMI 479
Issues:
Valuation of clearances of footwear under Section 4 A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 based on MRP assessment.
Analysis:
The case involved appeals against an order sustaining a demand and penalty imposed on the appellant for valuation of clearances of footwear under Section 4 A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 based on MRP assessment. The lower authorities had rejected MRP-based assessment, stating that the footwear was sold directly by the manufacturer to the consumer without intermediaries. They held that the retail price included various expenses not incurred by the appellant, thus requiring assessment under Section 4 of the Act. The appellant argued that MRP assessment should not be denied as the footwear bore MRP, was sold directly to users, and met the SWM-PC Rules requirements. They contended that the retail price marked represented the total proceeds realized. The Tribunal analyzed the scope of Section 4A in light of relevant case law, including the Jayanti Food Processing case.
The Tribunal examined the Apex Court's interpretation in the Jayanti Food Processing case, which outlined the conditions for goods to fall under Section 4A. The Court highlighted that excisable goods sold in packages with retail price declaration requirements could be valued based on retail sale price. In this case, the Tribunal found that the impugned goods met the criteria for Section 4A assessment. The goods were packed as per SWM-PC Rules, sold at marked retail price directly to consumers by the manufacturer, complying with Rule 23(2) of SWM-PC Rules. The absence of MRP on the package but on the footwear itself did not disqualify the goods for Section 4A assessment, as it prevented retailers from charging higher prices. Thus, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, vacating the impugned order and allowing the appeals.
In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis focused on the applicability of MRP-based assessment under Section 4A of the Act for clearances of footwear. By considering the legal provisions, case law, and SWM-PC Rules requirements, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's footwear met the conditions for MRP assessment, leading to the decision in favor of the appellant and setting aside the demand and penalty imposed.
-
2007 (11) TMI 478
Issues:
Appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order, denial of Cenvat credit, imposition of penalty, settlement under KVSS, re-sale of rejected consignments, jurisdiction of Commissioner (Appeals) post settlement.
Analysis:
The case involves an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the denial of Cenvat credit and imposition of a penalty. The appellant, having a factory in Surat and a branch office in Ahmedabad, cleared consignments of steel articles from Surat, some of which were rejected by consignees and re-sold at the Ahmedabad premises. The Assistant Commissioner proposed denying Cenvat credit, but later allowed it with a penalty. The appellant appealed against the penalty, settled under KVSS by paying 50% of the penalty, leading to the withdrawal of the appeal. Subsequently, the department appealed against the dropping of the duty demand, which the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed.
The appellant argued that the department's appeal should not have been entertained post the penalty settlement under KVSS, citing Section 92 of the Finance Act, 1988. The Tribunal noted that both the appellant and the department had filed appeals against the same original authority order. The Tribunal opined that since the dispute was settled under KVSS, the Commissioner (Appeals) should not have reopened the issue in the department's appeal.
The Tribunal observed that the rejected consignments, instead of being returned to the factory for resale, were received at the branch office, a registered dealer under Central Excise. While it was acknowledged that the credit was wrongly passed on, no action was shown to have been taken against those utilizing the credit. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant.
In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the settlement under KVSS precluded the reopening of the dispute by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the department's appeal. The case highlighted the importance of following proper procedures in dealing with rejected consignments and Cenvat credit issues under Central Excise regulations.
-
2007 (11) TMI 477
Issues:
1. Denial of Cenvat credit on Welding Electrodes, plates, Shapers, Shafts, and packing material.
Analysis:
1. Welding Electrodes: The issue of Cenvat credit on Welding Electrodes was settled in previous decisions of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal. The denial of credit in this case was upheld based on those precedents.
2. Packing Material: The appellants used packing material to prevent leakage in pipes during the manufacture of BP sugar and molasses. The Tribunal found that the packing material served as mechanical seals to prevent heat and liquid leakage, making the denial of credit unsustainable.
3. Shafts: The credit for shafts was denied as they were classified under a tariff heading not included in the definition of capital goods. However, since the shafts were used as parts of a mill, which falls under the definition of capital goods, the denial of credit was deemed unsustainable.
4. Plates and Shapers: Plates and shapers were used as raw material for the fabrication of components and specified goods used in the manufacture of excisable goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) acknowledged that these items were raw materials for capital goods, making the denial of credit unsustainable as per the definition of inputs.
5. Penalty: Regarding the penalty imposed for the denial of credit on welding electrodes, since the Larger Bench had already settled the issue, it was determined that the penalty was not warranted. Therefore, the penalty was set aside.
6. The appeal was disposed of based on the above analysis, with the decisions on each issue outlined and the reasons for upholding or setting aside the denial of credit clearly stated.
-
2007 (11) TMI 476
Issues:
Waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty on pharmaceutical goods sold to Government Hospitals; Assessment of assessable value based on dealer's price; Plea of time bar for the demand.
Waiver of Pre-Deposit of Duty and Penalty:
The judgment dealt with the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty amounting to Rs. 58,63,318/- confirmed against the appellant for the clearance of pharmaceutical goods (sutures) to Government Hospitals through dealers between March 2001 and December 2004. The contention was that the duty should be paid based on the price at which goods were sold by dealers to hospitals, whereas the company had paid duty on the lower price at which it sold goods to the dealers. The Tribunal observed that the language of the contract indicated that the manufacturer was the one quoting rates, accepting tenders, and directly supplying goods to hospitals. The dealers were considered as agents entitled to remuneration, and their remuneration could not be classified as a trade discount. Therefore, the assessable value of goods for duty liability should be based on the price agreed between the manufacturer and the Government hospital. The Tribunal found no strong prima facie case for a total waiver of the demand based on these merits.
Plea of Time Bar:
Regarding the plea of time bar due to the show cause notice covering the period from March 2001 to December 2004, the Tribunal analyzed a letter dated 24-5-2000. The letter mentioned dispatching goods through dealers at the contracted price for supply to bulk consumers, who would then supply the products to the Government hospital and agency at the agreed price. The Tribunal noted that there was no indication in the letter that the goods would be sold to dealers for supply to Government agencies at a price lower than the contracted price. Thus, the Tribunal held that the submission claiming the demand was time-barred was not substantiated prima facie.
Decision and Directions:
After considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal directed a pre-deposit of Rs. 15 Lakhs towards duty within 8 weeks, following which the pre-deposit of the balance duty and penalty would be dispensed with, and the recovery stayed pending the appeals. The Tribunal emphasized that failure to comply with this direction would lead to the vacation of stay and dismissal of appeals without prior notice. Compliance was required to be reported by a specified date.
In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty, assessment of assessable value, and the plea of time bar in a detailed manner, providing a comprehensive analysis of the legal aspects involved in the case.
-
2007 (11) TMI 475
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai corrected a typographical error in Final Order No. 1024/07 by substituting Tariff Heading 3307 41 00 for "3707 41 00". The application for correction was allowed.
-
2007 (11) TMI 474
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai set aside penalties imposed on the respondents in Final Order Nos. 94-99/WZB/2006/C-I. The Tribunal allowed refund of pre-deposit of penalties with interest, which the Revenue objected to, stating there is no provision for interest on such refunds. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's objection, stating that the Rectification of Mistake (ROM) application is not maintainable in this case.
............
|
9911796707
