|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 740 Records
-
2008 (4) TMI 614
Issues:
Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; Benefit of Notification No. 175/86 for financial years 1987-88 and 1988-89; Inclusion of clearances from leased premises in total value; Denial of benefit leading to demand of duty and penalty; Interpretation of clauses 3(a) and 3(b) of Notification No. 175/86; Appellants' contentions regarding separate entities and case laws; Invocation of extended period of limitation.
Analysis:
The judgment involves a dispute regarding the classification of goods under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and the eligibility of the appellants for the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 for the financial years 1987-88 and 1988-89. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing activities, declared their clearances below Rs. 150 lakhs for 1987-88 based on the aggregate value from all their manufacturing units. However, an audit revealed that clearances from leased premises were not included, leading to a total exceeding the threshold.
The appellants argued that the leased company should be considered a separate entity, not impacting their eligibility for the exemption. They cited case laws and contended that the value of clearances from the leased premises should not be added to their turnover. However, the Tribunal held that the clearances from the leased premises must be included, as per the Notification's clauses, resulting in the appellants being ineligible for the exemption for 1988-89.
Regarding the invocation of the extended period of limitation, the Tribunal found that mere knowledge of the lease agreement was insufficient, as the Department lacked data on clearances. The appellants failed to provide evidence of informing the Department about correct figures, leading to the rightful invocation of the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the denial of the exemption for 1988-89, confirmed the duty demand, and reduced the penalty imposed on the appellants. The decision was based on the interpretation of Notification No. 175/86's clauses and the specific circumstances of the case, distinguishing it from the cited case laws. The judgment highlights the importance of accurate reporting and compliance with statutory provisions to avail of exemptions under Central Excise laws.
-
2008 (4) TMI 613
Issues:
Appeal against rejection of application for remission of duty due to fire accident in factory.
Details:
The Appellant, engaged in manufacturing Safety Helmets, applied for remission of duty on finished goods destroyed by fire caused by electric short circuit in the factory. The Commissioner rejected the application.
The Appellant's Advocate referred to the Insurance Report showing the insurance claim excluding duty on the destroyed goods. Citing various Tribunal decisions, the Advocate argued for remission.
The Revenue's representative supported the Commissioner's findings, stating the Appellant failed to prevent the fire accident and did not prove it was unavoidable. Referring to court and Tribunal decisions, the Revenue argued against remission.
After reviewing the records, it was noted that the excisable goods were destroyed in the fire accident. The Commissioner denied remission, attributing negligence to the Appellant for storing inflammable material near the transformer. The Surveyor's report highlighted management failure in fire prevention.
The Surveyor's report indicated steps were taken to prevent destruction, and the Appellant's actions post-accident were commendable. The Insurance Company accepted the claim, and precedent cases supported remission for unavoidable accidents.
The Tribunal found no evidence of deliberate action by the Appellant causing the fire. The Appellant's evidence, including the Surveyor's report and F.I.R., established an unavoidable accident, leading to setting aside the Commissioner's order and allowing the appeal.
-
2008 (4) TMI 612
Issues:
- Disallowance of expenses and loading of value based on relationship influence.
- Influence of relationship on import prices.
- Discrepancy in import prices before and after the involvement of the appellant.
- Consideration of post-importation expenses in determining loading of value.
- Appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order upholding disallowance of expenses.
Analysis:
1. Disallowance of Expenses and Loading of Value:
The case involved an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the disallowance of 50% of expenses amounting to 28.21% of the cost of the goods and the consequent loading of value. The Original Authority had disallowed expenses on account of advertisement, sales promotion, travelling, and other general expenses, leading to a loading of 21.2%. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision but remitted the matter related to compensation loading for fresh consideration. Subsequently, the Original Authority reduced the overall loading to 14.1%.
2. Influence of Relationship on Import Prices:
The appellant, a subsidiary of a U.S.-based company, had a distribution agreement with its parent company. The case highlighted a significant difference in prices between third-party imports and imports by the appellant, ranging from 57% to 161%. The authorities found that the relationship between the appellant and the supplier influenced the prices, leading to the loading of value to account for this influence.
3. Discrepancy in Import Prices and Post-Importation Expenses:
The Original Authority analyzed the post-importation scenario and disallowed a portion of expenses, considering factors like employee compensation benefits, advertising, sales promotion expenses, and other general expenses. The appellant argued that the high post-importation expenses were justified due to the nature of the product and marketing activities, which involved extensive travel and training programs. However, the authorities maintained that the relationship with the supplier impacted the prices significantly.
4. Appeal Against Commissioner (Appeals) Order:
The appellant's advocate contested the comparison of prices with third-party imports, emphasizing the unique nature of the product and the necessity of high post-importation expenses. The appellant also presented a certificate from a Chartered Accountant and an audited balance sheet to support the reasonableness of the expenses. Despite these arguments, the authorities upheld the loading of value, considering the influence of the relationship on prices.
In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal, after considering the submissions and records, agreed that the relationship between the appellant and the supplier had a clear influence on prices. The Tribunal found the loading of 14.1% to be reasonable, given the circumstances. Consequently, the appeal was rejected, affirming the decision of the authorities below.
-
2008 (4) TMI 611
Issues:
1. Disallowance of benefit of Notification No. 1/95-C.E. for HSD oil used in Forklift and captive power generation plant by a 100% EOU.
2. Interpretation of conditions under Notification No. 1/95-C.E. regarding approval for receiving fuel and consumables for captive power plants.
3. Entitlement of 100% EOU to procure material handling equipment without payment of duty.
Analysis:
1. The appellant, a 100% EOU, appealed against the disallowance of the benefit of Notification No. 1/95-C.E. for HSD oil used in a Forklift and captive power generation plant. The Revenue contended that the appellant lacked approval to receive HSD oil for the forklift, thus making the notification benefit unavailable for the oil used in the forklift.
2. The appellant argued that under the notification, they were entitled to receive material handling equipment like a forklift without duty payment. They highlighted that the requirement for approval from the Asstt. Commissioner or Dy. Commissioner was specific to fuel, lubricants, and consumables for captive power plants. Since the HSD oil was used in the forklift, considered a material handling equipment, they asserted that no additional permission was needed for receiving the oil under the notification.
3. The Tribunal examined the notification exempting payment of duty for capital goods and raw materials procured by a 100% EOU. Referring to the specific item in the notification regarding fuel, lubricants, and consumables for captive power plants, it was clarified that approval from the Asstt. Commissioner or Dy. Commissioner was necessary only for those items. As the HSD oil was utilized in the forklift for material handling purposes, it was concluded that no separate approval was required for receiving the oil. Consequently, the impugned order disallowing the benefit of the notification was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
-
2008 (4) TMI 610
Issues: Denial of Cenvat credit due to failure to file necessary declaration for impugned goods, imposition of penalty, remand of the matter to the original Authority.
1. Denial of Cenvat Credit:
The Appellants were denied Cenvat credit on the impugned goods as they had not filed the necessary declaration before receiving the goods in their factory. The Appellants argued that although they did not declare the exact description of the goods, their submitted declarations for various items covered the impugned goods as well. However, the Authorities found that the declarations did not include the impugned goods. The Appellants' excuse of dealing with numerous items was deemed insufficient for not declaring the goods as required by the Rules. The Tribunal referred to a previous case where it was held that filing a declaration is necessary, but the prescribed limitation is not mandatory. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the Appellants another chance to file a proper declaration with the original authority for examination regarding the impugned goods, provided the conditions of receipt of goods and duty payment are met.
2. Imposition of Penalty:
A penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- was imposed on the Appellants for not filing relevant declarations as per legal provisions, despite taking credit of Rs. 44,81,692.83. The Tribunal considered the circumstances of the case and upheld the penalty, stating that it was fully justified. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the penalty imposed by the Authorities, given the Appellants' failure to comply with declaration requirements.
3. Remand of the Matter:
While upholding the penalty, the Tribunal set aside the duty demand and remanded the matter to the original Authority. The Appellants were directed to file the necessary declarations within a month of receiving the order. The original Authority was instructed to review the declarations, provide a hearing opportunity to the Appellants, and issue a fresh order based on the declarations submitted.
In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by remanding the matter for further review and compliance with declaration requirements, upholding the penalty imposed on the Appellants.
-
2008 (4) TMI 609
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Kolkata found that the impugned goods were manufactured as per the Purchase Order placed by the Calcutta Port Trust. The appellants were entrusted with the work of partial fabrication of the Buoys, and it was ruled that their work does not amount to production of marketable goods based on the Purchase Order. As a result, the requirement of pre-deposit during the appeal was waived.
-
2008 (4) TMI 608
Issues:
Interpretation of Notification No. 29/2002-C.E. regarding concessional duty rate eligibility for warehoused goods.
Analysis:
The appellant, a PSU Unit, sought waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty related to the clearance of warehoused goods under Notification No. 29/2002-C.E. The Revenue contended that the concessional duty rate applies only to the first warehouse receiving goods from specified NE Refineries. The term "said warehouse" was crucial, as per the Revenue's interpretation, referring to the initial warehouse receiving goods. The appellant, represented by M/s. IOCL, argued that the concessional rate should apply to all products removed from the Refineries, irrespective of the warehouse. The appellant emphasized that the Notification aimed to benefit goods removed from any warehouse receiving Refinery products. The appellant relied on legal principles favoring interpretations in favor of the taxpayer, but the contentions were rejected by the authorities.
The learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the Notification should not be strictly construed to deny benefits, emphasizing that the plain language of the Notification should prevail. He highlighted that the warehouse rules allow for goods storage in multiple warehouses, supporting the appellant's claim for benefit regardless of the warehouse. On the other hand, the JCDR contended that the exemption under the Notification applies only to goods removed from the warehouse directly receiving goods from the Refinery, justifying the denial of exemption based on this criterion.
The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, found the Revenue's approach overly strict in denying the Notification's benefit. Acknowledging that the goods were indeed received from specified Refineries, the Tribunal noted the PSU Unit's lack of misuse allegations. The Tribunal highlighted a strong prima facie case in favor of the appellant, allowing the stay application, waiving pre-deposit, and staying recovery beyond 180 days due to the substantial revenue involved. The matter was scheduled for an expedited hearing, recognizing the significant financial implications. The Tribunal's decision favored the appellant, granting relief based on the interpretation of the Notification and the circumstances surrounding the case.
-
2008 (4) TMI 607
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the permissibility of claiming Cenvat credit and depreciation on the total cost of D.G. set including Central Excise Duty under Section 32 of Income Tax Act, 1962, the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the bar of limitation in the demand of duty.
Permissibility of Cenvat credit and depreciation:
The Respondent purchased D.G. sets involving Central Excise Duty and claimed Cenvat credit and depreciation on the total cost, which was found impermissible under Rule 4(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. The Respondent voluntarily reversed the credit upon detection by the Audit party, leading to the Adjudicating Authority appropriating the amount. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order on the ground of limitation, but the Tribunal found that the demand of duty was not barred by limitation as the duty was voluntarily deposited by the Respondent.
Imposition of penalty:
The Adjudicating Authority imposed a penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, the Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) that there was no suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the penalty and interest imposed were not sustainable.
Judgment:
After considering the arguments and records, the Tribunal upheld the demand of duty confirmed and appropriated by the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal modified the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) by affirming the demand of duty but ruling out the sustainability of penalty and interest. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
-
2008 (4) TMI 606
The Revenue appealed against a decision setting aside a penalty on the respondent due to lack of demand for Modvat credit. The show cause notice issued in 2000, beyond the five-year period, did not propose denying the credit availed in 1993. The appeal was dismissed.
-
2008 (4) TMI 605
Issues:
Stay applications filed against Order-in-Original Nos. 5 & 6/2007-C.E. dated 17-5-2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin Commissionerate.
Analysis:
The appellants were required to pre-deposit specific amounts including duty, interest, and penalties as per the impugned order. The dispute arose from the classification of the appellants' activity as manufacturing under notification 6/2002. The appellants argued they qualified for the benefit under Serial No. 212, while the department contended they fell under entry no. 214. The Tribunal noted that the appellants received duty-paid chassis from KSRTC and only built bodies on them without taking credit for the duty paid. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's case under Serial No. 212, which exempts vehicles manufactured from duty-paid chassis without taking credit. The Tribunal acknowledged the distinction between the two entries and favored the appellant's interpretation.
The department's position was that the appellants should be covered by entry no. 214, which pertains to motor vehicles manufactured by a different entity than the chassis manufacturer. However, the Tribunal found substance in the appellant's argument for choosing the more beneficial provision when faced with two conflicting entries. Consequently, the Tribunal inclined towards granting a full waiver of the pre-deposit of duty, penalties, and interest due to the significant revenue involved. The Tribunal stayed further recovery proceedings pending the appeal's final decision, scheduled for a later date.
In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision favored the appellant's interpretation under Serial No. 212 over the department's assertion of falling under entry no. 214. The Tribunal granted a waiver of the pre-deposit due to the substantial revenue implications and stayed recovery proceedings until the appeal's resolution.
-
2008 (4) TMI 604
Issues:
1. Shortage of raw materials discovered during stock verification.
2. Allegation of clandestine removal of inputs and duty evasion.
3. Validity of penalty imposition and duty demand.
Analysis:
1. The case involved a company engaged in manufacturing forgings of spare parts, accessories, and components of motor vehicles under a specific sub-heading of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Central Excise Officers found a shortage of raw materials during a factory visit, which the company admitted. The shortage was converted into finished goods, and duty was calculated and paid by the company. A show cause notice was issued proposing duty demand and penalty imposition, which was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) modified the order, reducing the demand amount and setting aside the penalties.
2. The Revenue, represented by the Departmental Representative, contended that the shortage of inputs implied their clandestine use in finished goods without duty payment. The Revenue argued for the justification of duty demand and penalty imposition. The Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the penalties based on a previous Tribunal decision, which was later set aside by the High Court. However, the Tribunal found no evidence of clandestine removal of goods and upheld the Commissioner's decision on the penalty and duty demand.
3. Upon reviewing the records and submissions, the Tribunal noted that the company had admitted the shortage of inputs, attributing it to incorrect reporting by staff over time. The company agreed to reverse the credit on the shortage and provided a reasonable explanation. The Tribunal found no evidence supporting the allegation of clandestine removal of inputs or their conversion into finished goods. Consequently, it upheld the Commissioner's decision on the duty demand and penalty imposition, stating that there was no material to sustain penalty under the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeals, affirming the Commissioner's order.
In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, finding no evidence to support the allegations of duty evasion through clandestine removal of inputs. The decision emphasized the importance of proper documentation and explanations in cases of shortages to avoid unjustified penalty imposition.
-
2008 (4) TMI 603
Issues:
Classification of chromatography data station as part of gas chromatographs under CET sub-heading 9027.00 or as an automatic data processing machine under CET sub-heading 8471.00.
Analysis:
The issue in dispute in the present appeal revolves around the classification of the chromatography data station. The data station comprises various components such as interface cards, monitor, printer, keyboard, and interface cable. The interface cable connects with detectors of gas chromatographs, processes signals, and displays results on the monitor. The data station is deemed essential for the effective functioning of the gas chromatograph, but it is an independent assembly of equipment that functions as an automatic data processing machine. The Tribunal notes that parts and accessories falling under Chapter 90, 84, 85, or 91 are to be classified in their respective headings, as per Note 2(a) to Chapter 90. Therefore, the data station is classified under CET sub-heading 8471.00 as an automatic data processing machine, not under 9027.00 as contended by the appellants. The Tribunal distinguishes the present case from the precedent set in Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. CC, emphasizing the oversight of Note 2(a) to Chapter 90 in that judgment.
The Tribunal also references the decision in Bimetal Bearings Ltd. v. CC, Madras, where the classification of a CPU board was considered under Note 2(a), 2(b), and 2(c) to Chapter 90. In that case, the CPU board, which processed data from a photo multiplier in a spectrophotometer, was classified under CTH 8473.30 for customs duty and CET sub-heading 8473.00 for countervailing duty, not under 9027.90 as claimed by the appellants. This decision was not acknowledged in the Bajaj Auto case, further supporting the classification of the data station as an automatic data processing machine under CET sub-heading 8471.00.
In conclusion, the Tribunal upholds the impugned order and rejects the appeal, affirming the classification of the chromatography data station as an automatic data processing machine under CET sub-heading 8471.00.
-
2008 (4) TMI 602
Issues involved: Refund claim rejection, adjustment of amount towards predecessor company's dues, liability of successor company, validity of adjustment, ownership of assets and liabilities.
Refund claim rejection: The appeal arose from the rejection of the appellant's refund claim of Rs. 51,00,000/- on the basis that the amount was required to be adjusted towards the outstanding demand of the predecessor company, M/s. New Tobacco Ltd. The appellant contended that they were not connected to the outstanding dues of the predecessor company and that the amount pre-deposited before the Tribunal should be refunded as per the law.
Adjustment of amount towards predecessor company's dues: The Revenue proceeded to adjust the refund amount towards the dues of Rs. 35 crores by M/s. New Tobacco Ltd., claiming that the appellant was the successor to the company and had taken over its assets and liabilities. However, the appellant argued that they had not purchased the company nor taken over its assets and liabilities, but had only taken it on lease for one year as per the High Court's order for 1994-95. They denied any liability for the dues of the predecessor company.
Liability of successor company: The appellant maintained that they had not taken over the assets and liabilities of the predecessor company and had only leased it for a limited period. They argued that there was no provision for the Department to adjust the dues of the predecessor company with the pre-deposit made by them before the Tribunal. The appellant sought a refund of the pre-deposited amount along with interest.
Validity of adjustment: The Department contended that the appellant had admitted the liability and had taken over the predecessor company along with its assets and liabilities, justifying the adjustment of the refund amount. However, the appellant refuted this claim, stating that they had not admitted any liability and had only leased the company for a specific period.
Ownership of assets and liabilities: The Tribunal observed that the appellant had pre-deposited the amount for refund, which was adjusted by the Revenue towards the dues of the predecessor company. It was noted that the appellant had not taken over the assets and liabilities of the predecessor company and had only leased it for a limited period as per the High Court's order. The Tribunal held that the demand outstanding against the predecessor company could not be imposed on the appellant, and the adjustment was not valid. The Revenue was directed to refund the pre-deposit amount along with interest within one month from the date of the order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.
-
2008 (4) TMI 601
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore rejected a ROM application due to both sides taking adjournments, leading to the matter not being disposed of within six months from the date of the Final Order, as required by Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The decision was based on a judgment by the Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of C. Ex., Bangalore-III v. Denso Kirloskar Indus. Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2008 (224) E.L.T. 207 (Kar.).
-
2008 (4) TMI 600
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore dismissed the appeal due to a delay of 48 days in filing, rejecting the condonation of delay application citing insufficient grounds of low back ache as reason. Stay applications and appeals were dismissed as barred by time.
-
2008 (4) TMI 599
Issues:
Revenue's grievance on failure to impose penalty based on duty deposit before show-cause notice issuance.
Analysis:
The Revenue contended that penalty should have been imposed as per Section 11A of the Central Excises Act, 1944, citing various decisions. They argued that duty deposit doesn't absolve the Respondent from penalty. The Respondent, represented by counsel, explained the duty demand arose due to different costing methods, with no intention to evade revenue. They cited decisions supporting their stance. The Tribunal noted that the system of costing was crucial for penalty imposition. Both parties presented arguments on penalty imposition under Section 11A. The Tribunal highlighted the distinction between interest under Section 11AB and penalty under Section 11AC, emphasizing that penalty is penal in nature, applicable in cases of deliberate evasion. The judgment discussed the implications of Explanation (1) to sub-section (2B) of Section 11A, clarifying the conditions for penalty imposition. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision regarding penalty imposition before the 2001 amendment, emphasizing the change in the law post-amendment.
The Tribunal concluded that the Adjudicating Authority should reevaluate the penalty imposition issue, granting a fair opportunity to both parties. The Appeal of Revenue was allowed for further consideration in accordance with the law.
-
2008 (4) TMI 598
Issues involved: Interpretation of Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act regarding the timeline for hearing rectification applications after the passing of Final Orders by the Tribunal.
Summary:
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore addressed three ROM applications seeking rectification of Final Orders in different cases. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka's ruling in CCE, Bangalore v. Denso Kirloskar Industries Pvt. Ltd. emphasized that rectification applications must be heard within six months of the Final Order as per Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal's order passed after this period was deemed a nullity by the High Court. The revenue argued that Section 35C(2) is directory, not mandatory. However, considering the High Court's stance that orders must be disposed of within six months, the Tribunal rejected the ROM applications in all three cases due to the lapsed time period post the Final Orders, in line with the High Court's judgment.
-
2008 (4) TMI 597
Issues: Duty demand under Rule 173H of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and penalties imposed for not following Rule 173L procedure.
In this case, the appellants brought back duty paid pesticides to their factory for repacking and other processes under Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellants relabeled damaged products, changed sealing sleeves for leakage, and replaced damaged containers. They also refilled goods in smaller packs with new labels, which was considered as manufacturing under Chapter Note 2 of Chapter 38. A duty demand of Rs. 1,47,294/- was confirmed, and penalties were imposed for not following the procedure under Rule 173L. The Tribunal observed that the processes undertaken by the appellants amounted to manufacture. The appellants argued that their processes were similar to those in a Trade Notice and cited a Tribunal judgment to support their claim that their activities did not fall under the circumstances where a process amounts to manufacture. The Tribunal agreed with the defense arguments, noting that the appellants' actions were revenue neutral and beneficial to both parties. The appellants claimed that any value addition or price increase led to the payment of differential duty. The Tribunal concluded that even if the appellants' process was irregular, it was revenue neutral and beneficial to both parties. Therefore, the appeal was allowed with consequential benefits, as pronounced in the open court.
-
2008 (4) TMI 596
Issues: Stay applications filed by three parties against duty demands, penalties, and brand name ownership in garment manufacturing equipment cases.
Analysis:
1. The first issue involves the stay application filed by M/s. Sunfab against a duty demand, equivalent penalty, and Rule 25 penalty. The contention is that the brand name "SUNRISE" is a general name used by various companies, and the show cause notice was delayed post the search date. The appellant argues that the brand name was not owned by any party until registered by M/s. Sunrise Services. The appellant offers to pre-deposit a sum to contest the case, and Rule 25 of CE Rules is deemed inapplicable for penalties.
2. The second issue pertains to M/s. Alba Equipments' stay application against duty demand and penalties confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The argument revolves around the ownership of the brand name "SUNRISE" and the contention that M/s. Sunrise Services owned the trademark only after registration. The appellant offers to pre-deposit a certain amount, claiming SSI exemption and challenging the applicability of Rule 25 of CE Rules for penalties.
3. The third issue involves M/s. Sunrise Services' stay applications against penalties imposed under Rule 26 for allowing the use of the brand name "SUNRISE" by other parties. The appellant denies collusion in clearance of goods without duty payment and emphasizes a strong prima facie case. Both counsels rely on various judgments and circulars to support their arguments.
4. The final issue addresses the arguments presented by the Revenue in favor of penalties and duty recovery. The Revenue contends that the brand name "SUNRISE" was used as a trademark to identify goods, and statements indicate its use by other parties. The Revenue relies on a Supreme Court judgment to support its position and argues against financial hardship pleas for pre-deposit amounts.
5. The judgment considers the submissions and acknowledges the plea that demands post the search date cannot be alleged as suppression. It notes the non-registration of the "SUNRISE" symbol during the relevant period and the lack of ownership by any party. The judgment accepts the pre-deposit offers by M/s. Sunfab and M/s. Alba Equipments, waiving the balance of duty and penalties. The stay applications for penalties by M/s. Sunrise Services are allowed, with a warning of appeal dismissal for non-compliance. The appeals are scheduled for expedited hearing post compliance reporting.
-
2008 (4) TMI 595
The appellate tribunal rejected the revenue's appeal regarding the demand raised for 49 air-conditioners allegedly removed clandestinely. The Commissioner found an excess of 8 air-conditioners, neutralized shortages with excess, and concluded no evidence supported the charge of illicit removal. The appeal was rejected.
............
|
9911796707
