|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 863 Records
-
2008 (2) TMI 752
Issues involved: Interpretation of duty credit reversal for procured oxygen, application of accounting principles for inventory management.
Interpretation of duty credit reversal for procured oxygen: The appellants manufactured and procured oxygen, stored in a common tank for supply. Dispute arose regarding the duty credit reversal for duty-free supplies related to procured oxygen. Appellants claimed credit reversal only for supply exceeding their own production. However, the demand required reversal of entire credit for procured quantity supplied duty-free. Tribunal noted the common tank usage and directed application of first-in first-out principle for credit quantification. Impugned order set aside, matter remanded for redetermination of duty amount based on this principle.
Application of accounting principles for inventory management: Appellants permitted to store oxygen from both sources in a common tank. Manager confirmed first-in first-out principle applied for common inventories. Tribunal deemed this principle acceptable for quantifying credit reversal. Directed original authority to redetermine duty amount using this principle, granting appellants a hearing opportunity. Appellants allowed to raise time-bar grounds. Appeal allowed for remand in specified terms, cross-objection disposed of accordingly.
-
2008 (2) TMI 750
Issues:
1. Applicability of the principle of unjust enrichment in cases of captive consumption.
2. Examination of the claim based on balance sheet and chartered accountant's certificate.
3. Interpretation of Section 11AB(2)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Department challenging the reliance on a decision by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in a case which was subsequently reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Department argued that in cases of captive consumption, the principle of unjust enrichment applies, and the burden to prove otherwise lies on the claimant. However, the Tribunal noted that the respondents should be given an opportunity to demonstrate that they have indeed borne the excise duty and not transferred it to others. The respondents submitted a balance sheet and a certificate from a chartered accountant for examination by the original authority.
2. The advocate for the respondents highlighted that the refund was based on the non-availment of proforma credit under Rule 56A, and therefore, the claim should be assessed in light of the non-applicability of the principle of unjust enrichment as per Section 11AB(2)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Judge disagreed with the objection raised by the JDR regarding the timing of this reference, stating that legal issues can be raised at any stage. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the previous order and remanded the matter for a fresh examination by the Original Authority, directing a thorough review of both grounds raised by the respondents.
3. The Tribunal emphasized that the original authority must provide the respondents with a fair hearing and evaluate their plea regarding the inapplicability of the principle of unjust enrichment under Section 11AB(2)(c). If the original authority deems the principle applicable, the claim based on the balance sheet and the chartered accountant's certificate should be scrutinized. The Tribunal instructed the original authority to consider all aspects of the case and issue a fresh order based on a comprehensive examination of the facts presented. Ultimately, the Department's appeal was allowed on the terms outlined in the judgment.
-
2008 (2) TMI 749
Issues:
1. Contention of apparent mistake in Final Order
2. Allegation of suppression of facts by the appellant
3. Challenge regarding penalty reduction and lack of cross-appeal by revenue
4. Confirmation of demand for a larger period and penalty reduction
Analysis:
Issue 1: Contention of apparent mistake in Final Order
The Revenue filed a ROM application contending an apparent mistake in the Final Order, seeking its recall and confirmation of demand for a larger period. The Final Order had previously set aside the differential duty and penalty imposed by the Assistant Commissioner, citing no intention to evade duty due to the absence of suppression of facts.
Issue 2: Allegation of suppression of facts by the appellant
The ROM application highlighted that the appellant had not disclosed certain details in the declaration form, alleging suppression of facts. However, the appellant argued that all necessary details were disclosed, as acknowledged in the impugned order and the Original Order, leading to a penalty reduction from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 5,000.
Issue 3: Challenge regarding penalty reduction and lack of cross-appeal by revenue
Both authorities had unequivocally found no suppression of facts by the appellant, which should have been challenged by the Revenue through a cross-appeal. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's failure to challenge the penalty reduction or the findings of no suppression of facts earlier precluded them from raising the issue at a later stage, deeming the ROM without merit and rejecting it.
Issue 4: Confirmation of demand for a larger period and penalty reduction
The Tribunal upheld the findings of both authorities regarding the absence of suppression of facts by the appellant, which led to the reduction of the penalty. The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue's failure to challenge these findings through a cross-appeal precluded them from contesting the issue subsequently. Therefore, the confirmation of demand for a larger period and the penalty reduction were deemed in accordance with the law, and the ROM was rejected accordingly.
In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the ROM application, maintaining the original decision that there was no suppression of facts by the appellant, which justified setting aside the differential duty and penalty imposed earlier. The failure of the Revenue to challenge the penalty reduction or the findings of no suppression of facts earlier precluded them from raising the issue subsequently, leading to the rejection of the ROM.
-
2008 (2) TMI 748
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the rectification of mistake in the order passed by the Tribunal, the proper authorization for filing an appeal, the maintainability of the appeal, and the withdrawal of the Miscellaneous Application.
Rectification of mistake in the order passed by the Tribunal:
The Revenue filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking rectification of a mistake in the Tribunal's order, contending that the observation by CESTAT was not legal or proper due to discrepancies in the authorization process. The Tribunal had allegedly not scrutinized the documents properly, leading to an unjust order against the Department.
Proper authorization for filing an appeal:
The Tribunal noted that the authorization issued by the Committee of Commissioners lacked proper dating and did not demonstrate the legality or propriety of the appealed order. The absence of a date on the authorization raised doubts about its validity, and subsequent actions by the Revenue further highlighted inconsistencies in the authorization process.
Maintainability of the appeal:
The argument presented by the Revenue was that the Miscellaneous Application was filed to rectify a mistake apparent from the record, as the office copy of the authorization contained dates under the signatures of the Committee members. On the other hand, the Respondent contended that the Tribunal had correctly addressed the maintainability issue, and entertaining a non-maintainable appeal would result in a denial of justice.
Withdrawal of the Miscellaneous Application:
After the filing of the Miscellaneous Application, the Revenue submitted an application for the withdrawal of the same. The Tribunal, after considering all relevant facts and evidence, concluded that there was no mistake apparent from the record necessitating rectification. The withdrawal application was allowed, emphasizing the importance of upholding the statutory requirements for filing appeals.
In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Kolkata addressed the issues of rectification of mistake in the Tribunal's order, the necessity of proper authorization for filing appeals, the maintainability of appeals, and the withdrawal of the Miscellaneous Application. The decision underscored the significance of complying with legal procedures and upholding the integrity of the justice delivery system.
-
2008 (2) TMI 747
Issues:
1. Benefit of deemed credit and penalty imposition under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Analysis:
The case involved the appellants engaged in manufacturing Chenille Fabrics and unprocessed Woven Fabrics. Central Excise Officers seized Chenille Fabrics and found the appellants manufacturing and clearing them without duty payment. The appellants later paid the duty and interest for the goods manufactured up to a certain date. A show cause notice was issued proposing duty demand, penalty, and interest. The adjudicating authority confiscated the seized goods, allowing redemption on payment of a fine. No penalty was imposed due to lack of mala fide. The Commissioner (Appeals) modified the order disallowing deemed credit and imposing a penalty under Section 11AC.
The appellant's advocate argued that the appellants made a bona fide mistake as they believed Chenille fabrics were duty-free, citing a Settlement Commission decision and a Supreme Court case. The Revenue representative contended that the appellants mis-declared goods in invoices, suppressing facts to evade duty, supported by a High Court decision. The adjudication found a bona fide mistake by the appellants, noting regular issuance of challans and invoices to a sister concern and other departments. The Commissioner disallowed deemed credit due to misdeclaration in invoices, which the adjudicator disagreed with, stating that clearance in the brand name did not constitute misdeclaration.
The Settlement Commission's decision was considered persuasive, settling a similar issue with duty payment and penalty immunity. The Supreme Court's ruling in a related case highlighted that mere negligence or failure to pay duty in doubtful cases does not attract extended limitation. The Revenue relied on a High Court decision emphasizing that depositing duty before a show cause notice does not preclude penalty imposition if elements of mens rea are present. The adjudicator upheld the penalty, considering the party's conduct and established suppression of facts. Consequently, the Commissioner (Appeals) decision was overturned, and the adjudication order was reinstated, allowing the appeal.
-
2008 (2) TMI 746
Issues: Permission to raise additional grounds under Rule 41 of CESTAT Procedure Rules.
Analysis:
The appellants sought permission from the Appellate Tribunal to raise additional grounds as delineated in grounds 'J' & 'K' through a miscellaneous application filed under Rule 41 of CESTAT Procedure Rules. The Assistant Commissioner filed objections but did not raise any objection to the appellants raising these grounds. The learned Senior Counsel argued that the additional grounds were necessitated due to an amendment to the Finance Act, adding mining activity as another taxable category. Ground 'J' asserted that washing coal for KPTCL constituted an activity related to mining of minerals, thus taxable under Section 65 (105) and Section (zzzy) of the Finance Act introduced from 1-6-2007. Ground 'K' further amplified this submission and cited various judgments in support. The Senior Counsel contended that these were legal grounds and should be permitted in the interest of justice.
The learned SDR argued that these were questions of fact that should have been raised earlier and not questions of law to be raised at this stage. In response, the Senior Counsel emphasized that the amendment to the Finance Act necessitated the additional grounds to be raised and cited precedents supporting the allowance of additional grounds in such circumstances. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and the Assistant Commissioner's reply, noted that no objection was raised to permitting the appellants to raise additional grounds. Given that the additional grounds stemmed from the Finance Act amendment and were legal in nature, the Tribunal allowed the appellants to raise them. The appellants were directed to file a fresh form ST-5 along with the grounds before the next hearing scheduled for 27-2-2008, with the Registry instructed to issue the Order out-of-turn for further proceedings.
-
2008 (2) TMI 745
Issues involved: Jurisdictional issue regarding demand under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 u/s Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act/Section 73 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. Prima facie case against the demand on merits. Reference to Larger Bench regarding outward transportation of final product as an input service for Cenvat credit purposes.
Jurisdictional Issue: The Commissioner demanded amounts from the assessee under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which the appellant argued is not within the ambit of Chapter V of the Finance Act. The Commissioner's order under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994 was challenged as lacking jurisdiction since it pertained to Cenvat credit, not falling under Chapter V. The appellant claimed a prima facie case against the demand on merits. The issue of jurisdiction was deemed substantial and directed to be considered by the Division Bench.
Reference to Larger Bench: The appellant cited a reference to a Larger Bench regarding the recognition of outward transportation of final products as an input service for Cenvat credit purposes. The appellant argued for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery based on this reference. The respondent opposed, citing a different decision by the South Zonal Bench (Chennai) which was followed for judicial propriety and consistency.
Division Bench's Decision: The Division Bench had previously granted waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in a similar case involving India Cements Ltd. The present Bench, after considering this precedent, followed the Division Bench's decision and granted waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in the current case. The decision was made in the interest of judicial propriety and consistency.
Intervention by Another Party: Another party intervened, highlighting a similar case where waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery was granted by the Division Bench. This intervention influenced the final decision to follow the Division Bench's decision for consistency.
Conclusion: The judgment addressed the jurisdictional issue raised by the appellant and directed the appeal to be posted before the Division Bench for consideration. The decision to grant waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery was based on the Division Bench's previous ruling and the need for judicial propriety and consistency.
-
2008 (2) TMI 744
Issues: Duty demand, Penalty imposition, Confiscation of seized goods, Reduction of duty demand by lower Appellate Authority
The judgment pertains to a case where Central Excise Officers found discrepancies in the records of a company regarding the clearance of M.S. Scrap. The officers discovered clandestine removal of scrap through two methods: underpaying central excise duty on invoices and clearing goods without duty payment. A duty demand was raised, and penalties were proposed. The Addl. Collector confirmed the duty demand, imposed penalties, and confiscated seized goods, allowing redemption upon payment of fines. The lower Appellate Authority reduced the duty demand but retained the penalties and fines, leading to the current appeal.
Upon review, the judge found that the department's case of clandestine removal was supported by evidence such as weighment bridge records and the statement of a Scrap Dealer. The factory Manager of the appellants also admitted to engaging in clandestine removal practices. The judge noted that no grounds were presented to set aside the duty demand. The request for remand based on a certificate obtained after the impugned order was deemed unacceptable as the certificate was not filed along with an application for additional evidence before the Tribunal.
The judge upheld the duty demand and penalties, citing the established evidence of clandestine removal. However, the confiscation of land, building, plant, and machinery was set aside since the appellant was not a repeated offender. The judge determined that such confiscation was unwarranted in this case. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed, with the duty demand and penalties upheld, but the confiscation of assets being revoked.
---
-
2008 (2) TMI 743
Suspension of Customs House Agent’s Licence - Held that: - There is no dispute that authorization was not obtained directly from the exporters but only through M/s. Max Shipping Services, Freight Forwarders and Broker. Therefore, this charge of violation of Regulation 13(a) of the CHA Licence Regulation, 2004 stands proved.
However, the appellant is correct in contending that as soon as they noticed the discrepancy it was brought to the knowledge of the authorities. Therefore, we agree with the appellants that they have not contravened the provisions of Regulation 13(d) and 13(e).
The suspension order will be operative only up to 31-3-2008 and is to be lifted w.e.f. that date - decided partly in favor of appellant.
-
2008 (2) TMI 742
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the suspension and revocation of a Custom House Agent (CHA) license, violation of regulations under the Custom House Agent's Licensing Regulations, 1984, and evasion of customs duty.
Suspension and Revocation of CHA License:
The Commissioner suspended the CHA license of the appellants based on a show cause notice alleging evasion of customs duty. The suspension was later revoked pending an enquiry under Regulation 23 of the CHALR, 1984. The Inquiry Officer found all charges against the appellants to be proved, leading to the revocation of the CHA license and forfeiture of the security deposit by the Commissioner.
Violation of Regulations:
The appellants were charged with violating various regulations under the CHALR, 1984, including Regulations 13, 14(a), 14(b), 14(d), 14(f), 14(k), 14(l), and 20(7). The inquiry report established that the appellants allowed the use of their CHA license to sub-agents for monetary consideration, transferring the license to other firms in violation of Regulation 13.
Evasion of Customs Duty:
The malpractices adopted by the CHA enabled other firms to defraud the Government exchequer by evading customs duty amounting to Rs. 3.84 crores. The main charge and the corollary charges were found proved against the appellants, leading to the rejection of their appeal by the Tribunal.
-
2008 (2) TMI 741
Issues:
Liability on removal of processed inputs, valuation of clearances to related persons, consideration of profit and expenses in cost determination, adherence to CAS 4, invocation of extended period.
Liability on Removal of Processed Inputs:
The appeal involved a demand for duty on clearances of credit availed capital goods and processed inputs by M/s. Hydraulics Ltd. The impugned order confirmed a demand on removals of processed inputs and capital goods under relevant sections of the Central Excise Rules. The challenge in the appeal primarily focused on liabilities related to the removal of processed inputs. The appellants argued that they did not stand to gain by undervaluing clearances to sister units as the duty paid was available as credit. The Tribunal noted that extended period cannot be invoked for demanding differential duty on removals to related persons, citing relevant judicial authorities. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument and set aside the demand and related penal liabilities for the period in question.
Valuation of Clearances to Related Persons:
For clearances after 1-7-2000, the Tribunal observed that goods solely removed to related persons had to be valued at 115% of the cost of production as per the Central Excise Valuation Rules. The Tribunal highlighted the unambiguous valuation provisions applicable post-2000 and emphasized the need for compliance with the statutory provisions. As the appellants did not follow the valuation rules for clearances to a subsidiary company, the duty, interest, and penal liabilities for this period were to be reconsidered and decided afresh.
Consideration of Profit and Expenses in Cost Determination:
The appellants raised valid points regarding the determination of cost for the impugned goods. They argued that profit specific to the concerned product alone should be considered, and selling and distribution expenses not related to these goods should be excluded. Additionally, they highlighted the need to strictly follow CAS 4 for cost determination. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to reexamine this aspect and consider if a larger period could be invoked, taking into account factors like revenue neutrality and bona fide belief claimed by the appellants.
Adherence to CAS 4 and Extended Period Invocation:
The Tribunal emphasized the importance of following CAS 4 for cost determination and instructed the adjudicating authority to ensure compliance. Furthermore, the authority was directed to assess if an extended period could be invoked in the case, considering aspects such as revenue neutrality and the appellant's genuine belief. The demand and penal liabilities, including those already addressed, were remanded for readjudication, with the appellant granted an effective hearing.
This comprehensive analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai, highlights the key issues addressed, the arguments presented, and the Tribunal's findings and directions for further proceedings.
-
2008 (2) TMI 740
Issues:
1. Duty liability on imported goods abandoned due to damage under EOU Scheme.
Analysis:
The appellants imported Networking equipments under the EOU Scheme but due to damage caused by seepage of water in the warehouse, they decided to abandon the goods. The main issue was whether the appellants were liable to pay duty on the abandoned goods. The Revenue contended that duty was still applicable, while the appellants relied on various judgments to support their claim that once goods are abandoned and in bond, there is no obligation to clear them by paying duty.
The Tribunal examined the applicability of the judgments cited by the appellants, which emphasized that when the title of goods is abandoned, the assessee is not required to clear the goods, and the Revenue cannot recover the duty. The Tribunal found that the goods were bonded, the appellants had relinquished the title due to damage, and the Customs Act did not provide for clearance in such circumstances. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appellants had the right to relinquish the title without paying duty, and the department could confiscate the goods to recover duty upon sale.
As a result of the analysis, the Tribunal granted a full waiver of duty, allowing a stay on duty recovery until the appeal's disposal, even after the expiry of 180 days of the Stay Order. The Tribunal prioritized the case for an expedited hearing due to the significant revenue involved and the prima facie coverage of the matter by relevant judgments. The decision highlighted the distinction between duty liability in cases of abandoned goods under the EOU Scheme, emphasizing the rights of the appellants and the authority of the department to recover duty through confiscation and sale of goods.
-
2008 (2) TMI 739
Issues:
Penalties imposed on transport commission agents for issuing fake lorry receipts showing movement of duty-free imported waste paper, liability under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, role of the appellants in aiding and abetting the commission of the offense, reduction of penalties.
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai involved penalties imposed on transport commission agents for issuing fake lorry receipts indicating the movement of duty-free imported waste paper. The appellants were penalized for aiding and abetting the commission of an offense by the importer, M/s. Star Pulp & Paper Products. The penalties were imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, as the appellants admitted issuing bogus lorry receipts at a rate of Rs. 25 per receipt. The tribunal noted that the appellants, being in the transport business, could not claim ignorance of the requirement to transport imported goods to the importer's factory. The Commissioner upheld the liability to confiscate the imported goods under Sections 111(d) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, emphasizing the role of the appellants in the offense.
Despite the argument that no imported goods were available for confiscation, the tribunal held that the appellants had aided and abetted M/s. Star Pulp & Paper Products in the commission of the offense, justifying the imposition of penalties. However, considering the overall circumstances, the tribunal decided to reduce the penalties from Rs. 1 lakh each to Rs. 25,000 in each case. This reduction was based on the totality of the facts and circumstances presented during the hearing. Ultimately, the appeals were partly allowed due to the reduction in penalties, acknowledging the involvement of the appellants in the offense while adjusting the penalties accordingly.
-
2008 (2) TMI 738
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi allowed the appeal against the rejection of remission of duty application due to handling and storage loss. The rejection was based on failure to inform the Department within 24 hours, but the Tribunal ruled that such applications cannot be rejected solely on this ground. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order.
-
2008 (2) TMI 737
Issues:
- Applicability of Proforma Credit Scheme and Modvat credit
- Refund claim rejection based on Proforma Credit Scheme withdrawal
- Interpretation of Rule 57H of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules
- Comparison with the decision in National Industrial Corporation case
- Eligibility for Modvat credit for the duty paid on inputs
Analysis:
The case involved the appellants engaged in spinning woollen yarn, weaving, and processing fabrics, availing Proforma Credit under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules. The Proforma Credit Scheme was withdrawn on 20-5-94, replaced by Modvat credit. The issue arose when the Revenue refused to allow transfer of Proforma credit to Modvat scheme for the period from 20-5-94 to 2-6-94. The refund claim by the appellants was rejected by the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals).
The advocate for the appellant argued that the case aligns with the Division Bench decision in the National Industrial Corporation case and Rule 57H applies. The Departmental Representative supported the Commissioner (Appeals) findings, stating the National Industrial Corporation decision is not applicable.
The judge, after considering both sides, noted that the Proforma Credit Scheme was replaced by Modvat credit, and the appellants lacked awareness of this change, hence continued Proforma Credit for 14 days. Referring to Rule 57H, the judge found similarity with the National Industrial Corporation case where the Tribunal allowed credit for duty paid on inputs despite scheme withdrawal. The judge highlighted the discretionary powers of the Assistant Collector under Rule 57H to grant Modvat credit if inputs are used in final products cleared after a specific date.
Consequently, the judge set aside the previous order, ruling in favor of the appellants, making them eligible for Modvat credit for the duty paid on inputs used during the period in question. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
In conclusion, the judgment clarified the applicability of Proforma Credit and Modvat credit schemes, interpreted Rule 57H, compared the case with the National Industrial Corporation decision, and upheld the appellants' eligibility for Modvat credit based on the specific provisions and transitional provisions under the erstwhile Central Excise Rules.
-
2008 (2) TMI 736
Issues:
1. Duty demand on grounds of price difference for captive consumption.
2. Challenge on limitation, interest, and penalty.
Analysis:
1. The assessees were paying 8% of the price of rectified spirit manufactured by them in compliance with Rule 57CC. However, scrutiny revealed that the price for captive consumption was reduced to Rs. 5/- per litre while the price for home consumption was raised to Rs. 7/- per litre. The department issued a Show Cause Notice for differential duty payment, interest, and penalty. The Commissioner confirmed the duty paid, imposed interest, and penalty under relevant provisions. The assessees challenged the demand on limitation grounds, interest, and penalty.
2. The assessees did not dispute the duty demand on merits but only challenged the limitation period, interest, and penalty. The price declarations and invoices did not indicate different rates for captive and home consumption. The lower rate for captive consumption was not due to market conditions but deliberate undervaluation as evidenced by a resolution. The resolution stated that a lower rate was set to evade duty payment due to the introduction of Rule 57CC. The Tribunal found this to be a clear case of suppression with an intent to evade duty payment. As the assessees admitted to not challenging the demand on merits, the Tribunal held the demand was not barred by limitation and upheld the duty, interest, and penalty imposed.
3. The Tribunal concluded that the assessees' actions constituted suppression to evade duty payment by misdeclaring the price of rectified spirit. As the assessees did not contest the demand on merits, the Tribunal upheld the duty demand, interest, and penalty imposed. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order and rejected the appeal, emphasizing the intentional misdeclaration of prices for captive consumption as a form of duty evasion.
-
2008 (2) TMI 735
CENVAT credit - common inputs on which credit has been availed are used in the manufacture of dutiable and exempted goods - Rule 6 of CCR - Demand - Time Limitation - Held that: - the demand is for the period August 2001 to January 2002 and show-cause notice was issued on 12-7-04 alleging suppression with intent to evade payment of duty. The appellants were regularly filed ER-I monthly returns showing clearance of goods on payment of duty and clearance of the same goods under notification without payment of duty - the allegation of suppression on the part of appellant to evade payment of duty is not sustainable hence demand is set aside as time-bar - penalty also set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2008 (2) TMI 734
Issues involved: Interpretation of Cenvat Credit Rules regarding eligibility of credit at different duty rates paid by original manufacturer and subsequent purchaser.
Summary:
The case involved a dispute regarding the eligibility of availing credit at different duty rates paid by the original manufacturer and subsequent purchaser. The original manufacturer paid duty at 8% ad valorem, while the subsequent purchaser paid duty at 12% ad valorem. The appellant, who purchased the goods from the subsequent purchaser, availed credit at the higher rate of 12% ad valorem. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellant was not eligible for credit at the higher rate based on Rule 3(1)(i) of Cenvat Credit Rules, which specifies that credit shall be based on the duty leviable under the Act. However, the Tribunal, citing the case of Eveready Industries (I) Ltd v. CCE, Allahabad, emphasized that the Central Excise authorities cannot challenge assessments made by officers having jurisdiction over the input supplier. As the appellant availed credit based on valid invoices from the registered dealer and the duty payment at 12% ad valorem was not disputed, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with consequential relief.
-
2008 (2) TMI 733
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai found the appeals regarding confiscation of foreign currency to be maintainable. The appeals filed by the appellants are admitted for further proceedings. The issue of confiscation of foreign currency can be considered as baggage, allowing the Tribunal to entertain and dispose of the appeals.
-
2008 (2) TMI 732
Issues: Rectification of mistakes in the final order regarding export price and notified port in a customs case.
In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, the issue revolved around rectifying mistakes in the final order related to the export price and notified port in a customs case. The tribunal, represented by Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram and Shri A.K. Srivastava, JJ., heard the application for rectification of mistakes apparent on the record in the final order No. A/490-498/CSTB/WZB/C-I, dated 29-8-2007. The order highlighted discrepancies in the original decision, specifically in paragraphs 6 and 7.
Regarding paragraph 6, the tribunal acknowledged that an error existed in relying on the export price of Vaishnodevi Exports, as it implied the export took place on the same day as the appellant's export, which was not the case. The tribunal corrected this by substituting the sentence to reflect that Vaishnodevi Exports made a similar export around the same time. This rectification aimed to align the factual accuracy of the order with the evidence presented.
Moving on to paragraph 7, the tribunal noted an inaccuracy in stating that all shipping bills showed Dubai as the notified port. Upon review, it was clarified that only some of the shipping bills indicated Dubai as the notified port. Consequently, the tribunal amended the final sentence of paragraph 7 to accurately reflect this by stating that only some shipping bills displayed Dubai as the notified port. This correction aimed to ensure precision and clarity in the findings of the tribunal.
Ultimately, the tribunal allowed the application for rectification of mistakes as presented, thereby addressing the discrepancies in the original order concerning the export price and notified port. The rectifications made in paragraphs 6 and 7 aimed to uphold the integrity and accuracy of the tribunal's decision in the customs case, ensuring that the factual details align with the evidence and submissions before the tribunal.
............
|
9911796707
