|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 576 Records
-
2008 (6) TMI 404
Issues:
Claim for nil rate of duty under Notification No. 6/2002 for blended yarn - Composition of yarn as 70 : 30 in the invoice - Eligibility for exemption - Interpretation of blend percentage - Intent of parties - Tolerance limit of blend percentage - Precedents supporting exemption claim.
Analysis:
The appellants, engaged in manufacturing yarn and fabrics, sought exemption under Notification No. 6/2002 for blended yarn with polyester and cotton. The dispute arose as the invoice indicated the blend as 70 : 30, potentially exceeding the 70% polyester limit for exemption. A show cause notice challenged their eligibility based on this composition discrepancy.
The appellant contended that despite the 70 : 30 blend mentioned, the intention was to clear yarn with less than 70% polyester, supported by the buyer's excise-free requirement and lab tests showing compliance. However, both the original and appellate authorities denied exemption due to the blend declaration in the invoice.
During the hearing, the appellant presented evidence including purchase orders, lab reports, and industry standards allowing a tolerance of +/- 3% in blend composition. Citing precedent, they argued that exceeding the blend ratio did not automatically disqualify them from exemption.
In its analysis, the Tribunal acknowledged the usual rule barring exemption due to the 70 : 30 blend declaration. Yet, considering the unique circumstances, such as the clear intent to claim exemption, tests conducted before the notice, and the cooperative nature of the buyer, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant. Emphasizing the genuine intent and the actual blend percentage being compliant, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, recognizing the parties' awareness of the exemption criteria.
In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision to grant exemption was based on the specific facts of the case, highlighting the importance of intent, compliance with blend requirements, and the cooperative nature of the buyer. The judgment underscored the significance of genuine intentions and actual composition over technical discrepancies in blend ratios for claiming exemptions under the relevant notification.
-
2008 (6) TMI 403
Issues:
Classification of Rectified Spirit under Central Excise Act, 1944 and CETA, 1985.
Analysis:
The appeal filed by the Revenue challenged the order-in-appeal that classified Rectified Spirit manufactured by the respondents as suitable for use as fuel in I.C. engines, under erstwhile tariff item No. 6(ii) of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Act, 1944, and subsequently under sub-heading No. 2204.00 of the CETA, 1985.
During the proceedings, the Department's representative relied on the opinion provided by IIP, Dehradun, and I.O.C. to support their appeal. Conversely, the respondent's advocate referred to a previous judgment of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Cellulose Products of India Ltd., which had attained finality and involved the same product. The advocate argued that since the judgment in the previous case was conclusive and the opinions of IIP and I.O.C. were available to the Tribunal at that time, the Department's appeal should be dismissed. It was emphasized that the lower authorities had correctly followed judicial discipline by dismissing the demands raised in show cause notices against the respondents.
The advocate for the respondent also highlighted that certain judgments cited by the Department were not relevant to the current case due to changes in the tariff and lack of essential information in those cases. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the decisions of the lower authorities, as the matter had already been settled in the previous judgment of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected.
The judgment was pronounced in court on 24-6-2008 by B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T).
-
2008 (6) TMI 402
Issues:
1. Rectification of impugned order based on pending appeal by the Department.
2. Eligibility of small scale exemption for clearance between units.
3. Refund of duty on exported goods processed by the second unit.
Analysis:
1. The Tribunal addressed the issue of seeking rectification of an earlier order due to a pending appeal by the Department against the impugned order. The Tribunal noted that the Department failed to raise this point during the hearing, leading to the rejection of the miscellaneous application for rectification. The Tribunal emphasized that the mere pendency of the Department's appeal was not sufficient grounds for rectification of the earlier order, and the application was deemed misconceived and rejected.
2. Regarding the appeal filed by the Department, the Tribunal examined the issue of eligibility for small scale exemption in the clearance of goods between units. The Tribunal observed that the show-cause notice did not include any charge stipulating that the clearance between units should be clubbed for determining eligibility for the exemption. The Tribunal also dismissed the Department's argument that the first unit should not have availed the exemption when clearing goods to the second unit. The Tribunal emphasized that since the processed goods were exported, and duty on those goods had been refunded to the respondents by the second unit, the initial value and duty rate of clearance from the first unit were immaterial. The Tribunal highlighted that any higher duty paid by the first unit would have resulted in a higher refund to the second unit, ultimately concluding that the Department's appeal lacked merit and was rejected.
3. The Tribunal concluded by rejecting the Department's appeal, emphasizing that the duty refund on the exported goods processed by the second unit rendered the initial clearance value and duty rate from the first unit inconsequential. The Tribunal's decision was based on the understanding that the credit of duty paid by the first unit was utilized by the second unit, leading to the refund, regardless of the initial clearance specifics.
-
2008 (6) TMI 401
Demand - Limitation - non invocation of Extended period - Held that: - there is no evidence to suggest intention to evade on the part of the appellant. We are inclined to accept that it was due to lack of understanding of the provisions of Notification. As it appears to be case of difference in interpretation, we hold that invocation of extended period for demanding duty is not justified. Imposition of penalty is also not warranted - we uphold the demand of duty involved within the normal period of limitation and we set aside the demand of the balance of duty involved. Penalty is set aside.
-
2008 (6) TMI 400
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Cenvat/Modvat - capital goods - inputs - Held that: - matter referred to Larger Bench to decide Whether the term “capital goods” can include plant, structures ebedded to earth?, Whether the goods like angles, joists, beam, channels, bars, flats which go into fabrication of such structures can be treated as ‘inputs’ in relation to their final products as inputs for capital goods, or none of the above? and Whether the credit can be allowed in respect of goods like angles, joists, beam, channels, bars, flats which go into fabrication of such structures and plant?
-
2008 (6) TMI 399
Revocation of Customs House Agents Licence - jurisdiction - Held that: - the Commissioner has sought to revoke the licence under Regulation 22 by issuing a SCN but has prohibited the appellant from conducting business in Mumbai Custom House which cannot be considered as prohibiting the agent from working in a section or more sections of the Custom House. Further prohibiting the agent from working in the Mumbai Custom House tantamounts to revocation of Licence in respect of activities in the Mumbai Custom House which cannot be done by Commissioner as he has no jurisdiction to revoke the licence, once the Licence is issued by Commissioner Banglore who has dropped such proceedings - appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
-
2008 (6) TMI 398
Issues:
1. Interpretation of exemption notification for concessional rates on paper pulp manufacturing.
2. Whether the entire manufacturing process needs to be conducted in the same factory to avail the benefit of the notification.
Analysis:
1. The case involved the interpretation of exemption notifications for concessional rates on paper pulp manufacturing. The appellant manufactured paper pulp from raw materials and sent it to a job worker for processing before receiving it back for further manufacturing. The Department contended that since the entire manufacturing process was not conducted in the appellant's premises, the benefit of the notification was not available. The appellant argued that the exemption notification did not require all processes to be undertaken in the same factory and that movements of goods for processing by a job worker were allowed under Notification No. 214/86.
2. The Tribunal carefully considered the submissions and the Board's circular from 1994. It was noted that the circular clarified that the exemption under the notifications was not available if paper or paper board was manufactured using imported or bought-out pulp. However, in this case, the appellant had used pulp manufactured only by them, and the final product was also manufactured in their own factory, even though certain processes were conducted at the job worker's premises. The Tribunal found that the appellant was eligible for the exemption notification as they had not used imported or bought-out pulp, and the final product was manufactured in their own factory.
3. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the appellant was prima facie eligible for the exemption notification. Consequently, the Tribunal granted a waiver of the requirement of pre-deposit of dues and stayed the recovery of dues until the appeal was disposed of. This decision was based on the finding that the appellant met the conditions of the exemption notification by using self-manufactured pulp and completing the final manufacturing process in their own factory, despite certain processes being outsourced to a job worker.
-
2008 (6) TMI 397
Issues:
1. Mistakes apparent on record in the order dated 29-2-2008.
2. Claim of clearing cement without payment of Central Excise duty under Rule 96ZV.
3. Discrepancies in the procedure for receiving damaged cement and the quantum of recoverable cement.
4. Appeal against the demand and penalty imposed by the original authority and Commissioner (Appeals).
5. Interpretation of the Chemical Examiner's report on the setting properties of cement.
6. Eligibility of the appellant for the benefit under Rule 96ZV.
Analysis:
Issue 1:
The judgment highlighted mistakes apparent on record in the order dated 29-2-2008, where only details of one appeal were discussed while others were not mentioned. Consequently, in the interest of justice, the order was recalled, and all appeals were restored to their original numbers for re-hearing.
Issue 2:
The appellant cleared 957.63 MT of cement without paying Central Excise duty, claiming entitlement under Rule 96ZV for reprocessing damaged cement brought into the factory earlier. The original authority and Commissioner (Appeals) found discrepancies in the procedure for receiving damaged cement and the recoverable quantity, leading to a demand of Rs. 3,35,171/- and a penalty. The Tribunal re-evaluated the case.
Issue 3:
The appellant's advocate argued that the quality of the cement after reprocessing met standards, and the Chemical Examiner's reliance on a tour note from another company was irrelevant. The Chemical Examiner's report mentioned setting properties, but the Tribunal clarified that this did not mean the cement had irreversibly set. The appellant's reprocessing method was deemed feasible, allowing for the recovery of 100% of the damaged cement by weight.
Issue 4:
The Tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) and the original authority, holding that the appellant was eligible for the benefit under Rule 96ZV. The Tribunal noted that the quantities cleared subsequently were equal to those cleared earlier on payment of duty, supporting the appellant's claim for reprocessing and duty-free clearance.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeals, granting the appellant consequential relief based on the re-evaluation of the case and the eligibility of the appellant for the benefit under Rule 96ZV. The decision emphasized the feasibility of the reprocessing method and the permissibility of duty-free clearance for the reprocessed cement, overturning the previous demands and penalties imposed.
-
2008 (6) TMI 396
Service of order - Appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) - Time Limitation - in existence of proof of sending of order of adjudication by Speed Post by Revenue whether such order is said to have been served on the person for whom that was meant? - Held that: - acknowledgement produced by Revenue proves that order of adjudication was sent by Speed Post and the order was deemed to have been served under sub-section (2) of Section 37C on the date on which the order-in-original was delivered by Speed Post. The deeming provision of law supported by evidence of dispatch does not help the Appellant/Applicant to succeed - application dismissed.
-
2008 (6) TMI 395
Issues:
- Appeal against order setting aside demand and penalty on the ground of limitation.
- Admissibility of credit on capital goods not received in the factory.
- Invocation of extended period under Section 11AC.
- Comparison of judgments regarding admissibility of credit without receipt of goods.
Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that set aside the demand of Rs. 3,84,000/- and an equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC due to limitation. The case involved the respondents taking credit of duty paid on capital goods from April 2003 to March 2004, which were not received in their factory. The Department issued a show cause notice in 2006 invoking the extended period under Section 11AC, leading to the adjudication order and the subsequent appeal.
The Revenue argued that the capital goods were never received in the factory, and the credit was taken solely based on an invoice without any proof of dispatch to the supplier. They contended that the extended period was rightly invoked due to the lack of proof of receipt and non-compliance with procedural requirements. On the other hand, the respondents cited a Tribunal decision regarding duty paid by a job worker, emphasizing the admissibility of such credit.
After considering the submissions, the Tribunal noted that the capital goods had been with the job worker since 1980 when credit on duty paid was not admissible as Cenvat credit. The Tribunal found that the issue arose from the procedural irregularity of the respondents choosing to take credit without transferring the goods as per procedure. It was acknowledged that the capital goods were used by the job worker for the respondents, making them eligible to transfer the same. The Tribunal held that the stand of the Commissioner (Appeals) on not invoking the extended period was correct, and the Tribunal's previous decision on duty paid by a job worker was applicable to the case.
Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue, concluding that on both merits and limitation, the Department's appeal failed. The judgment highlighted the importance of following procedural requirements for the admissibility of credit on capital goods and emphasized the specific circumstances of the case that led to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal.
-
2008 (6) TMI 394
The goods of the applicants were seized, and they deposited Rs. 10 lakhs for release, but it was not done. The Tribunal found the application not maintainable as the show cause notice had not been adjudicated yet. The application was dismissed.
-
2008 (6) TMI 393
Issues:
1. Delay in resolving appeals filed in the office of the Commissioner of Central Excise.
2. Absence of relevant records hindering the resolution of appeals.
3. Reconstruction of files and cooperation required from the appellant for the same.
Analysis:
The case involved a situation where the appellant's appeals filed in 1992 in the office of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata had not been resolved for over 16 years. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) highlighted that due to the shifting of the Commissioner (Appeal), Central Excise from Kolkata to Patna and then to Ranchi, the necessary documents related to the appeals were not available, making it impossible to make a decision on the files.
The Commission acknowledged the appellant's frustration and surprise at the lack of resolution of the appeals despite being properly filed. Emphasizing that an appeal under the Central Excise Act is a quasi-judicial action, the Commission expressed astonishment at the lack of attention given to these appeals over the years. However, it was deemed unproductive to dwell on past delays.
In light of the circumstances, the Commission directed the matter to be remitted back to the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Ranchi, with instructions to conduct a hearing with the appellant. The Commissioner was tasked with initiating the process of reconstructing the records necessary for resolving the appeals and responding to the appellant's RTI queries. A timeframe of 90 days was provided for completing this reconstruction process, considering its potential time-consuming nature.
The decision concluded by disposing of the appeal with the outlined directions and mandated that a copy of the decision be shared with the involved parties. The resolution of the issues hinged on the cooperation of the appellant in providing essential documents for the reconstruction of the appeal records, facilitating the eventual resolution of the long-pending appeals.
-
2008 (6) TMI 392
Issues:
1. Delay in quasi-judicial proceedings.
2. Availment of Modvat credit on invoices lacking prescribed particulars.
3. Interpretation of Board's Circular on retrospective operation.
4. Denial of credit for procedural lapses.
Delay in Quasi-Judicial Proceedings:
The judgment highlights the extraordinary delay in the case, spanning over a decade from the date of filing the reply to the final issuance of the order. The judgment criticizes the lackadaisical functioning of the Department's quasi-judicial system, acknowledging the disenchantment and disaffection of the Appellant due to the system's inadequacy. Emphasizing the loss of credibility and the need to avoid exacerbating delays at the appellate level, the judgment calls for urgent disposal of the case to address the neglect and malaise within the system.
Availment of Modvat Credit:
The case involved the appellant availing Modvat credit on invoices issued by M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. The issue arose as the invoices did not contain particulars as prescribed under relevant notifications. The Appellant contended that the invoices were duly verified and that no dispute regarding duty payment on the inputs existed. Citing a Circular by the Central Board of Excise & Customs and a Tribunal decision, the Appellant argued that credit should not be denied for minor technical lapses when the duty paid nature of inputs was not in question.
Interpretation of Board's Circular:
The judgment criticized the Additional Commissioner for holding that a Board's Circular had prospective operation, contrary to settled legal principles that Circulars have retrospective effect. Referring to a Supreme Court decision, the judgment emphasized that Circulars should be interpreted to have retrospective application, thus disagreeing with the Commissioner's interpretation of the Circular's temporal scope.
Denial of Credit for Procedural Lapses:
In analyzing the case law and precedents, the judgment found the impugned order unsustainable and set it aside. Citing a previous decision by the Hon'ble CESTAT, the judgment concluded that credit should not be denied for procedural lapses when the duty paid nature of inputs and their receipt at the appellant's factory were not in dispute. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, granting consequential relief as per the law.
In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of delay in quasi-judicial proceedings, the denial of Modvat credit for procedural lapses, and the interpretation of Circulars with retrospective effect, ultimately ruling in favor of the Appellant and setting aside the impugned order.
-
2008 (6) TMI 391
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai allowed the Revenue's appeal, holding that the goods are to be confiscated with an option to redeem them on payment of a fine of Rs. 7 lakhs. The Tribunal dismissed the ROM application stating that setting aside the impugned order does not mean setting aside the penalty imposed by the Commissioner.
-
2008 (6) TMI 389
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to Cenvat credit on the basis of supplementary invoice.
2. Effect of filing an application before the Settlement Commission on admission of facts.
3. Requirement of specific findings by the Settlement Commission regarding suppression of facts.
Summary:
Issue 1: Entitlement to Cenvat credit on the basis of supplementary invoice
The dispute revolves around the appellant's entitlement to take Cenvat credit of the differential duty paid by its Jalgaon and Pune units. The Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 (and the subsequent 2004 Rules) specify that Cenvat credit can be taken based on certain documents, including a 'supplementary invoice'. However, if the additional duty became recoverable due to fraud, collusion, or wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, the supplementary invoice is not admissible for taking credit. The Tribunal noted that there is no express provision denying Cenvat credit in such cases, but the exception in Rule 7(1)(b) implies that credit cannot be claimed if additional duty was paid due to fraud or suppression of facts.
Issue 2: Effect of filing an application before the Settlement Commission on admission of facts
The appellant's Jalgaon unit had filed an application u/s 32E of the Central Excise Act before the Settlement Commission after paying the entire duty demand. The appellant argued that filing such an application does not amount to an admission of the allegations in the show cause notice unless a specific finding of fraud or suppression is recorded by the Settlement Commission. The Tribunal referenced the case of Essar Steel Ltd., where it was held that mere filing of a petition before the Settlement Commission cannot be considered as an admission of guilt.
Issue 3: Requirement of specific findings by the Settlement Commission regarding suppression of facts
The Tribunal noted that the Settlement Commission, in its final order, did not grant waiver of interest, observing that the appellant had derived financial gain by not paying the duty when it was due. The Tribunal raised the question of whether the Settlement Commission is required to record a specific finding regarding suppression of facts, and in the absence of such a finding, whether the appellant can be disqualified from taking Cenvat credit.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal referred the following questions to a Larger Bench for consideration:
1. Whether the assessee is entitled to take Cenvat credit on the basis of supplementary invoice when additional duty is paid suo motu on receipt of a show cause notice alleging wilful misstatement or suppression of facts.
2. Whether filing an application before the Settlement Commission for waiver of interest and penalty after paying the entire duty demand amounts to an admission of the facts alleged in the show cause notice.
3. Whether the Settlement Commission must record a specific finding regarding suppression of facts, and in the absence of such a finding, whether the applicant can be disqualified from taking Cenvat credit.
Interim Order:
Pending the decision of the Larger Bench, the Tribunal dispensed with the pre-deposit of duty and penalty and stayed the recovery as per the order-in-original of the Commissioner of Central Excise.
-
2008 (6) TMI 388
Issues:
1. Challenge against demand of duty, fine, and penalty by M/s. Em Pee Bee International.
2. Challenge against penalty imposed on Shri N.C. Alexander.
3. Authentication of computer printouts as evidence under the Diplomatic And Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948.
4. Consideration of financial hardships for pre-deposit of duty and penalties.
Issue 1: Challenge against demand of duty, fine, and penalty by M/s. Em Pee Bee International
The appeal by M/s. Em Pee Bee International, represented by its proprietor, challenges the demand of duty exceeding Rs. 98 lakhs, a fine of Rs. 1 crore in lieu of confiscated goods, and penalties imposed under the Customs Act. The impugned demand is based on an enhancement of the value of imported goods, supported by computer printouts retrieved from the supplier through the Indian Consulate, New York. The main contention is the authenticity of these printouts under the Diplomatic And Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948. The appellant argues that the printouts lack the necessary seal and signature of the authorized officer, rendering them inadmissible as evidence. However, the importer had initially accepted the printouts as authentic, only later retracting this statement in a writ petition. The Tribunal finds the initial admission by the importer as a valid acceptance of the printouts' authenticity, thereby upholding the enhancement of the goods' value based on the prices indicated in the printouts.
Issue 2: Challenge against penalty imposed on Shri N.C. Alexander
Shri N.C. Alexander has filed an appeal challenging the penalty imposed on him for abetment of the offense committed by the importer. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, grants waiver and stay of recovery of the penalty imposed on Alexander, as waiver and stay were granted for the main offender. This decision aligns with the consistency observed in a previous case where pre-deposit was directed to be approximately 10% of the duty demanded.
Issue 3: Authentication of computer printouts as evidence under the Diplomatic And Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948
The central argument revolves around the authentication of computer printouts as evidence under the 1948 Act. The appellant contests the validity of the printouts due to the absence of the seal and signature of the authorized officer. However, the Tribunal finds the initial acceptance of the printouts' authenticity by the importer as a crucial factor, negating the applicability of the 1948 Act in this case. The Tribunal emphasizes that the importer's retraction in a writ petition filed after the show cause notice cannot be considered a valid retraction, further solidifying the admissibility of the printouts as evidence.
Issue 4: Consideration of financial hardships for pre-deposit of duty and penalties
The appellant did not provide substantial evidence of financial hardships, aside from claiming business closure and inability to make any pre-deposit. However, these averments lacked supporting evidence. Despite the absence of concrete financial hardship proof, the Tribunal directed M/s. Em Pee Bee International to pre-deposit Rs. 10,00,000 within a specified timeframe, aligning with the consistency observed in similar cases where pre-deposit was set at approximately 10% of the duty demanded.
This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved and the Tribunal's decisions on each matter.
-
2008 (6) TMI 387
Issues:
1. Admissibility of credit on Sulphamethoxazole as an anti-bacterial agent.
2. Use of Sulphamethoxazole in relation to the manufacture of final products.
3. Discrepancy in the use of Sulphamethoxazole for fumigation purposes.
4. Failure to counter Revenue's arguments by the respondent.
Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai involved a dispute regarding the admissibility of credit on Sulphamethoxazole, claimed to be used as an anti-bacterial agent in the manufacturing process. The Commissioner (Appeals) had initially upheld the admissibility of the credit based on the respondent's contention that Sulphamethoxazole was necessary for removing impurities from their raw material, Isaphghula husk, thus considering it as being used in the manufacture of final products.
However, the Revenue contended that Sulphamethoxazole was an anti-biotic drug, not an anti-bacterial agent, as confirmed by the Deputy Chief Chemist's report. The Revenue argued that an anti-biotic drug could only act when consumed by humans and could not kill bacteria present in the atmosphere. Additionally, the Revenue highlighted that Sulphamethoxazole was not utilized in the manufacture of the specific products claimed by the respondent, as per the statement of the General Manager of the manufacturing company. The Revenue further pointed out discrepancies, such as the destruction of Sulphamethoxazole in a fire incident that was not reported to the department, casting doubt on the necessity of the product for the manufacturing process.
The respondent failed to appear before the Tribunal or submit any written submissions to counter the Revenue's arguments. The Tribunal, after considering the lack of response from the respondent, set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and reinstated the Asst. Commissioner's order, thereby ruling in favor of the Revenue's contentions regarding the inadmissibility of credit on Sulphamethoxazole for the manufacturing process.
-
2008 (6) TMI 386
Issues involved: Appeal filed by Revenue seeking restoration of interest demand vacated in impugned order.
Summary:
1. Issue of interest liability: The appeal filed by the Revenue sought to restore the demand of interest vacated in the impugned order. The appellant had removed excisable goods without payment of duty due to unforeseen circumstances. The Commissioner (Appeals) vacated the demand of interest except for a small amount paid after the issue of Show Cause Notice. The Revenue contended that interest should be paid u/s 11AB even if duty is paid before the notice is issued.
2. Grounds raised by Revenue: The Revenue raised grounds citing case laws prior to 11-5-2001, emphasizing that interest should be paid even if duty is paid before the notice. The Respondent relied on various case laws and the judgment of the Supreme Court in a similar case, arguing that the Commissioner's order was in accordance with the law.
3. Judicial interpretation of Section 11AB: The Tribunal analyzed Section 11AB which provides for interest on delayed payment of duty. The Commissioner's reliance on case laws interpreting Section 11AB prior to 11-5-2001 was deemed misplaced. The Tribunal noted that interest liability accrues automatically, and notice is not required for its recovery. The appeal filed by the Revenue was allowed regarding the interest liability of the appellant.
Decision: The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue, holding that interest liability under Section 11AB accrues automatically, and notice is not required for its recovery. The case laws cited by the Commissioner (Appeals) were interpreted in light of the existing legal provisions, leading to the restoration of the interest demand vacated in the impugned order.
-
2008 (6) TMI 385
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi ruled in favor of the appellant, a 100% EOU, regarding the classification of waste as cotton waste based on pre-dominance of cotton content. The appellant's claim that the waste cleared by them is rightly classifiable as cotton waste was accepted, and the stay petitions were unconditionally allowed.
-
2008 (6) TMI 384
Issues involved: Duty liability on Spent Nickel Catalyst and Denatorium Saccharide.
Issue 1: Duty liability on Spent Nickel Catalyst
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal, with the respondents also filing Cross Objection. Despite the absence of representation from the respondents, the appeal was taken up for disposal due to the narrow compass of the issue. The main issue revolved around the duty liability on the Spent Nickel Catalyst arising during the manufacturing of final products. The respondents claimed it as not excisable. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the Department's appeal and allowed the respondents' appeal based on the absence of a specific tariff entry for waste arising in the course of manufacture, making it not dutiable. Citing Supreme Court judgments, it was established that the Spent Nickel Catalyst is waste, not a finished product, and therefore not subject to duty liability. The appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected, and the Cross Objection by the respondents was disposed of.
Issue 2: Denatorium Saccharide
Regarding Denatorium Saccharide, it was sent to a distillery unit to denature Ethyl Alcohol, an input for the appellant. Although not directly used in the final product's manufacture, it was utilized to denature Ethyl Alcohol entirely. Rule 57D(2) allows Modvat credit on inputs even if used through an intermediate product that may not be excisable. The Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise & Customs, Mumbai VII had previously allowed this in a similar case. The appellate authority correctly followed the law as laid down by the Tribunal in the respondent's own case, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal and the disposal of the respondents' Cross Objection.
............
|
9911796707
