|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 301 to 320 of 730 Records
-
2009 (5) TMI 726
Issues:
1. Pre-deposit of penalty and duty amount.
2. Allegation of violation of natural justice.
3. Modus operandi of the appellant.
4. Compliance with the adjudication order.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Pre-deposit of penalty and duty amount
The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs. 6,58,053/- against a duty demand of Rs. 7,23,800/ and the difference was protected by a bank guarantee. The adjudicating authority directed the encashment of the bank guarantee for duty realization. The Revenue argued for pre-deposit of penalty levied against the appellant and the partner before hearing the appeal. The Tribunal considered the conduct of the appellant and directed a deposit of Rs. 3 lakhs within six weeks, emphasizing the need to protect the interest of Revenue as per legal precedents.
Issue 2: Allegation of violation of natural justice
The appellant claimed a violation of natural justice as the adjudication was done ex parte without giving an opportunity to present their case. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had been given ample opportunities since 2008 but failed to respond to the show cause notice, causing delays in the proceedings. Despite the appellant's arguments, the Tribunal found their conduct questionable and directed compliance with the deposit within a specified time frame.
Issue 3: Modus operandi of the appellant
The Department highlighted the modus operandi of the appellant before the adjudicating authority, emphasizing evidence under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Revenue contended that the appellant's method should be penalized for bringing charges against them. The Tribunal considered the evidence presented and directed the appellant to make the necessary deposit before the Commissioner for a fresh hearing.
Issue 4: Compliance with the adjudication order
The Tribunal dismissed the stay application but granted a limited remand, directing compliance with the deposit of Rs. 3 lakhs. This compliance was deemed essential to protect the interests of Revenue, as per legal precedents cited in the judgment. The Tribunal concluded by remanding both appeals and ensuring no further deposit by the partner for hearing his appeal.
This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, NEW DELHI, providing a comprehensive understanding of the decision and its legal implications.
-
2009 (5) TMI 725
Issues:
1. Appeal challenging the order demanding duty, interest, and penalty under Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Appeal challenging the dismissal of the application for remission under Central Excise Rules, 2002.
Analysis:
Issue 1:
The Tribunal found that the matters required reconsideration by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were remanded for a fresh decision without insisting on a pre-deposit. The appellant challenged the order demanding duty, interest, and penalty under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal observed that the first round of litigation concluded with an order directing the Revenue authorities to decide the application for remission of duty along with the proceedings related to the demand of duty. However, the Tribunal noted discrepancies in how these matters were handled by different authorities. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the Revenue authority to consider the appellant's defense in response to the show cause notice along with the claim for remission of duty. It was highlighted that the defense and justification for remission should be considered together, and the appellant should have been heard before passing the impugned order on the remission application. The Tribunal referred to legal precedents emphasizing the importance of natural justice and the need for a party to be heard before any decision prejudicial to their interest is made.
Issue 2:
In the second appeal, the appellant challenged the dismissal of the application for remission under Section 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Tribunal analyzed the requirement of issuing a show cause notice in such matters. It was argued that while natural justice principles must be adhered to, the issuance of a show cause notice may not be necessary in every case. The Tribunal pointed out that the Central Excise Rules, 2002, concerning applications for remission, do not mandate the issuance of a show cause notice. Legal references were made to highlight the applicability of natural justice principles in administrative actions involving civil consequences. The Tribunal emphasized that the initiation of proceedings at the applicant's instance could justify the non-requirement of a show cause notice, especially when the proceeding commences based on an application by the party. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded for simultaneous consideration of the demand of duty and the application for remission of duty by the Commissioner, Allahabad.
In conclusion, the Tribunal directed the authorities to expedite the disposal of the matters and expected cooperation from both parties. The Appeals and stay applications were disposed of accordingly.
-
2009 (5) TMI 724
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to reject the appeal filed by the Revenue. The shortage of finished goods involving Central Excise Duty was detected during stock verification, but there was no evidence of mens rea or clandestine removal of goods by the respondent. The penalty imposed was not justified as per Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appeal was dismissed on 15-5-2009.
-
2009 (5) TMI 723
Issues:
Excisability of spent Methanol cleared by the applicants.
Analysis:
Issue: Excisability of spent Methanol
The issue in this case revolves around the excisability of the spent Methanol cleared by the applicants. The applicants, engaged in manufacturing bulk drugs and intermediaries, used methanol as a solvent. The contention was that as methanol became impure over time during the manufacturing process, they cleared the spent methanol. The Revenue argued that duty was payable on the spent methanol. The learned Advocate for the applicants relied on several Tribunal decisions favoring the assessee in similar cases. The Tribunal noted that spent methanol is a waste product and clarified that the manufactured product was not spent methanol but rather distilled and purified. The Tribunal found no manufacturing process involved as the input itself was methanol. Considering the arguments and precedents, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the applicants, granting a full waiver of the pre-deposit of the dues demanded in the impugned order. The Tribunal also directed that no coercive measures should be taken by the Revenue until the appeal's disposal, with the stay order continuing even after 180 days.
---
-
2009 (5) TMI 722
Issues:
Rectification of mistakes apparent from the record in the final order.
Analysis:
The Revenue filed applications for rectification of mistakes in the final order, which both sides agreed were timely. The Revenue proposed four rectifications: correcting the mention of the originating orders, rectifying a sub-heading error, addressing a grammatical error, and clarifying a dispute between tariff headings. The Tribunal heard both sides and made specific directions for each proposal.
1. The first proposal involved correcting the mention of the originating orders. The Tribunal directed that "Order-in-Original" should be read as "Order-in-Appeal" in the cause title, thereby resolving this issue.
2. The second proposal focused on rectifying a sub-heading error. Both sides acknowledged the error in mentioning sub-heading 3303.20 instead of 3003.20. The Tribunal directed that the correct sub-heading should be read as 3003.20, effectively resolving this discrepancy.
3. The third proposal regarding a grammatical error in a sentence was deemed inconsequential by both sides as it did not affect the substance of the order. Therefore, the Tribunal did not address this proposition.
4. The fourth proposal aimed to rectify an error in a tariff heading dispute. The Tribunal directed that the figure mentioned as 3001.31 should be read as 3003.31 instead, clarifying the discrepancy between tariff headings and effectively resolving this issue.
In conclusion, the Tribunal's directions for rectification addressed all four proposals made by the Revenue, ensuring that the final order accurately reflected the corrections. The order passed by the Tribunal on a previous date should now be read with the specified amendments, thereby disposing of all the miscellaneous applications filed by the Revenue.
-
2009 (5) TMI 721
Issues: Condonation of delay in filing appeal due to misplaced order by employee.
Analysis:
1. The applicant sought condonation of a 71-day delay in filing the appeal, attributing it to an employee misplacing the impugned order in their office.
2. The applicant's advocate argued that there was no negligence on the part of the applicant, emphasizing the merit of the case and citing relevant case laws to support condonation.
3. The Revenue's representative contended that misplacement by the employee was insufficient grounds for condonation, highlighting the lack of action taken against the employee by the applicant, indicating a lack of seriousness in filing the appeal.
4. Upon review, the judge found merit in the Revenue's submission, noting the misplaced order and the absence of any corrective action by the applicant, suggesting a lack of diligence in filing the appeal within the stipulated time frame.
5. The judge distinguished the present case from precedents like Leelam Roadways, Zuari Cement Ltd., and Krishna Couriers, where delay was condoned due to specific circumstances involving employee actions.
6. Concluding that the applicant's inaction regarding the misplaced order did not warrant condonation, the judge rejected the application for delay condonation, consequently dismissing the appeal and stay application.
This judgment underscores the importance of promptly addressing delays in filing appeals, emphasizing the need for diligence and proactive measures by applicants to avoid adverse consequences. The judge's decision was based on the specific facts of the case, highlighting the significance of taking appropriate actions in response to internal errors to uphold the timeliness and efficiency of legal proceedings.
-
2009 (5) TMI 720
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai rejected refund claims for export cess due to limitation and non-production of original documents. The claims were filed beyond the six-month period from payment, not 'under protest'. The plea that the levy on prawns was unconstitutional was deemed not tenable as no such order existed. The Tribunal upheld the decision that exports of prawns/shrimps were not subject to cess. Refund claims were rejected as being barred by limitation.
-
2009 (5) TMI 719
Issues:
Waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty based on Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Pre-deposit of duty and penalty
The applicant sought waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty amounting to Rs. 1,03,267/- each. The case involved the clearance of capital goods based on transaction value, leading to a dispute regarding the reversal of credit availed on such clearance as per Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Commissioner (Appeals) held the applicant liable to reverse the credit. However, a Tribunal precedent in Cummins India Ltd. v. CCE, Pune-III provided a different interpretation, stating that the assessee was not required to reverse the credit upon removal of old, damaged, and un-serviceable capital goods. The Tribunal noted an amendment that allowed for a reduction in the credit amount. The Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case for a waiver of the entire duty and penalty amount.
Issue 2: Examination of value declared
The Tribunal highlighted the need to examine whether the value declared by the applicant falls within the reduction limit specified in the Rules amendment. The amendment introduced a percentage reduction for each quarter of a year or part thereof from the date of taking Cenvat credit on removed capital goods. This examination was deemed necessary to determine the applicability of the reduction and its impact on the duty and penalty amounts in question.
Issue 3: Tribunal's decision
Considering the above factors, the Tribunal directed the applicant to deposit Rs. 30,000 within six weeks, with the remaining duty and penalty amount waived pending the appeal's disposal. The Tribunal emphasized the need for compliance by a specified date and pronounced the order in open court on 15-5-2009. The decision reflected a balanced approach, requiring a partial deposit while granting a waiver for the remaining amount subject to compliance.
In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi addressed the issues of pre-deposit of duty and penalty under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, examining relevant precedents and amendments to determine the applicant's liability and the extent of waiver granted. The decision underscored the importance of compliance and adherence to statutory provisions in such matters.
-
2009 (5) TMI 718
Issues:
1. Provisional assessment and finalization of duty payment for lead and zinc concentrates transferred between mining and smelting units.
2. Adjustment of excess payment against short payment and revenue neutrality in inter-plant transfers.
3. Interpretation of Central Excise Rules and relevant case laws for finalization of provisional assessment.
Analysis:
1. The case involved an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the provisional assessment of duty payment for lead and zinc concentrates transferred between mining and smelting units. The appellant had paid duty provisionally based on an order by the Assistant Commissioner. The original authority found short payment for a specific period and demanded payment, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. The appellant argued that the goods were transferred on an inter-plant basis, not for sale, and the value declaration was provisional due to the profit margin determination at the end of the financial year. They sought adjustment of excess payment against short payment, claiming revenue neutrality in the transfer process. The appellant cited Tribunal decisions to support their position.
3. The learned DR contended that provisional assessment is authorized for specific grounds affecting duty rates or valuation, emphasizing the importance of self-assessment by the appellant. Finalization of provisional assessment must consider invoice-wise details, as per relevant Tribunal decisions and instructions from the Board. The Board's instructions highlighted the necessity of finalizing provisional assessments within a specified period and emphasized return-wise finalization.
4. The Tribunal carefully considered both sides' submissions and emphasized the importance of assessing duty rates, values, and end-use conditions for provisional assessments. Finalization of provisional assessments must be done by the designated authorities within a reasonable time frame. The decision highlighted the significance of invoice-wise assessment and the need to address short payments separately from excess payments.
5. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's appeal, emphasizing the necessity of invoice-wise finalization and compliance with Central Excise Rules. The judgment clarified the process of finalizing provisional assessments and the importance of adhering to specific guidelines for duty payment adjustments and inter-unit transfers within the same company.
-
2009 (5) TMI 717
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai allowed the application filed by M/s. Rajyalakshmi Machine Works (P) Ltd. for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 3,54,252/-, interest, and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed in the impugned order. The appellants had short-paid Education Cess and paid duty consignment-wise using Cenvat credit, contrary to prescribed rules. The Tribunal found that the appellants had discharged their duty from the Cenvat account, and allowed the waiver of pre-deposit, granting a stay of recovery pending appeal decision.
-
2009 (5) TMI 716
Refund claim - Application against outstanding arrears - Held that: - It appears that the respondent is disputing appropriation of the refund amount against outstanding arrear and, therefore, Commissioner (Appeals) rightly observed that the assessee should be given opportunity to defend their case which is part of principles of nature justice - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2009 (5) TMI 715
Issues:
1. Eligibility for exemption under notification No. 125/84-C.E. for goods cleared from 100% EOU without permission.
2. Assessment of goods under Section 3(1) or the proviso to Section 3 of the Central Excise Act.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Eligibility for exemption under notification No. 125/84-C.E. for goods cleared from 100% EOU without permission:
The Tribunal considered whether goods cleared from a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) clandestinely and without permission are eligible for exemption under notification No. 125/84-C.E. The appellant's advocate acknowledged that the key issues were answered against the appellant's case. Reference was made to a previous case, Jaipur Golden Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Surat, where similar issues were discussed. The Tribunal noted the conflicting decisions in various cases but ultimately referred to the decision of the Larger Bench, which held that goods cleared by a 100% EOU and sold in India with the Development Commissioner's permission shall be assessed under the proviso to Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, and the exemption notification would not be applicable. The Tribunal found that the appellant's case did not present any distinguishing factor to deviate from the Larger Bench's decision, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Issue 2: Assessment of goods under Section 3(1) or the proviso to Section 3 of the Central Excise Act:
The second issue revolved around whether the goods in question should be assessed under the provisions of main Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act or under the proviso to Section 3. The Tribunal emphasized that the goods, even if stolen during transit, did not alter the liability to pay duty or the mode of assessment. Citing the precedent set by the Larger Bench in Jaipur Golden Transport, the Tribunal concluded that the matter at hand aligned with the decision of the Larger Bench. Consequently, the appeal was deemed liable for dismissal and was dismissed accordingly.
In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision against the appellant, emphasizing the application of the proviso to Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act for goods cleared by a 100% EOU with the Development Commissioner's permission, and the inapplicability of exemption notification No. 125/84-C.E. The judgment highlighted the importance of consistency in legal interpretations and adherence to precedents set by higher benches in resolving similar issues.
-
2009 (5) TMI 714
Issues:
Appeal against order of Commissioner (Appeals) regarding denial of credit on various grounds.
Analysis:
1. The appellant, a sugar mill, procured capital goods, received components, spares, and accessories, and inputs. The original authority raised demands on various grounds, including non-usage of chem ash, missing declaration for defoamers, parts not falling under specified categories, missing mandatory declarations, and disputed credit reversal. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the denial and imposed penalties.
2. The appellant argued that chem ash was used in manufacturing, parts were for capital goods, and missing details were provided monthly. The disputed credit reversal was under protest, though not as per rules. The appellant conceded some demands but contested others based on previous tribunal decisions.
3. The Department contended that chem ash wasn't directly used in manufacturing and disputed the credit reversal. They cited a tribunal decision to support their stance.
4. The Tribunal found the appellant's debit in 1996 didn't follow protest procedures, making the suo motu credit invalid. However, demanding twice for the same amount was deemed improper. The penalty was reduced to Rs. 3 lacs. Some credits were confirmed as uncontested.
5. The Tribunal ruled that chem ash use was related to manufacturing and parts didn't need to fall under specific categories. The broad declaration of goods by the appellant was deemed sufficient, as they maintained proper records and submitted returns regularly.
6. The Tribunal confirmed some demands and penalties but set aside others, ultimately upholding a demand of Rs. 6,30,995/-, Rs. 1,269/-, and Rs. 7,596/-, with a penalty of Rs. 3 lacs. The rest of the demands and penalties were set aside.
Judgment:
The appeal was disposed of with the above terms.
-
2009 (5) TMI 713
The judgment by Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi emphasized the need for filing separate appeals for each order-in-original passed by the original authority, even if they are disposed of by the Commissioner (Appeals) in a single order. The explanation clause to Rule 6A of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 was considered in this context. The order dated 23-4-09 in Stay Application No. 230/2009 was recalled to exclude paragraph 3.
-
2009 (5) TMI 712
Issues:
1. Revenue's appeal based on rejected inputs deduction without C.Ex. formalities.
2. Lack of evidence for clandestine removal of inputs.
3. Commissioner's error in not allowing the department to discharge onus.
4. Commissioner's finding on inputs kept separately and not cleared without duty payment.
Analysis:
1. The first issue in the judgment revolves around the appeal filed by the Revenue concerning the deduction of rejected inputs without following C.Ex. formalities. The Revenue contended that the rejected inputs were removed from the Raw Material Register and RG 23A Part I without adhering to the necessary formalities. The absence of compliance with C.Ex. formalities raised concerns for the Revenue, leading to the appeal.
2. The second issue highlights the lack of evidence collected by the department to substantiate the claim of clandestine removal of the inputs in question. The absence of concrete evidence supporting the alleged clandestine removal raised doubts regarding the validity of the claim. The department failed to provide substantial proof to establish the occurrence of clandestine removal, thereby weakening their case.
3. Moving on to the third issue, the Commissioner (Appeals) was criticized for not allowing the department to discharge the onus placed on it. The department sought an inquiry to prove the alleged clandestine removal and discharge its obligations as per the Apex Court judgment. The failure of the Commissioner (Appeals) to direct an inquiry to enable the department to prove its case was deemed as an error, especially considering the significant revenue involved.
4. The final issue addressed in the judgment pertains to the Commissioner (Appeals)'s findings regarding the inputs for which credit was availed. The Commissioner found that the inputs, for which credit was taken, were kept separately in the factory and some were defective, remaining within the factory premises. The Revenue, however, failed to present evidence demonstrating that these inputs were cleared without payment of duty. Due to the absence of such evidence, the impugned order was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed based on the lack of proof supporting the Revenue's claims.
In conclusion, the judgment delves into various issues concerning compliance with formalities, the burden of proof, and the necessity of concrete evidence to substantiate claims in matters involving revenue and duty payments. The decision emphasizes the importance of fulfilling procedural requirements and providing substantial evidence to support allegations in legal disputes related to tax matters.
-
2009 (5) TMI 711
Issues involved: Appeal against demand, penalty, and interest u/s Valuation Rules and Central Excise Act.
Summary:
Issue 1: Demand, Penalty, and Interest under Valuation Rules
The Revenue appealed against the order setting aside the demand, penalty, and interest. The contention was that the respondents were not paying duty as per Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules for goods cleared to their other factory for captive consumption. The respondents argued that duty had been paid as per Rule 8 @ 115% of the cost of production, albeit late. They accepted liability for interest u/s 11AB for late payment but contended that penalty u/s 11AC was not applicable due to no suppression of facts and issuance of the show-cause notice within the limitation period.
Issue 2: Liability to Pay Duty and Interest
The Tribunal found the respondents liable to pay duty as per Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules and interest u/s 11AB for late payment, which was admitted by the respondents. However, since there was no suppression of facts and the demand was within the limitation period, the penalty u/s 11AC was set aside. The impugned order was modified accordingly, and the appeal was partly allowed.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the duty payment as per Valuation Rules and the liability for interest on late payment, while setting aside the penalty due to the absence of suppression of facts and the demand being within the limitation period.
-
2009 (5) TMI 710
Issues: Smuggling of gold jewellery, confiscation of currency and penalties under Customs Act, 1962.
Analysis:
1. Smuggling of Gold Jewellery: The case involved the interception of individuals at an airport in possession of gold jewellery smuggled from Singapore. The individuals were found with documents containing names, passport numbers, and photos, along with Indian and foreign currency. Further investigation revealed a modus operandi where employees of a jeweler facilitated the smuggling of gold from Singapore to Chennai.
2. Confiscation and Penalties: Following the interception, a show cause notice was issued proposing the confiscation of the gold jewellery, currency, and imposition of penalties under various sections of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner adjudicated the matter, ordering the confiscation of the gold jewellery and currency, along with penalties imposed on the jeweler, passengers, and vehicle occupants involved in the smuggling operation.
3. Legal Considerations: The Tribunal noted that the passengers were eligible as they met the criteria for staying in Singapore for over six months and carrying less than the maximum allowable quantity of gold. Additionally, it was observed that the interception occurred before the passengers could file their baggage declarations, indicating a lack of violation on their part. Similarly, it was found that the jeweler and other individuals had not prima facie violated the relevant sections of the Customs Act.
4. Decision: In light of the legal considerations and lack of prima facie evidence of violations by the parties involved, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit of penalties imposed on all applicants and stayed the recovery pending appeals. The request for early hearing was granted, with the appeals scheduled for final hearing on a specified date.
5. Miscellaneous Applications: The Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous applications seeking the release of the car and currency, as well as a stay on the disposal of jewellery, considering the expedited hearing of the appeals.
In conclusion, the judgment addressed the smuggling of gold jewellery, confiscation of currency, and imposition of penalties under the Customs Act, 1962, highlighting legal considerations and decisions made by the Tribunal regarding the parties involved in the smuggling operation.
-
2009 (5) TMI 709
Issues:
Clandestine removal of goods, Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Analysis:
Clandestine Removal of Goods:
The case involved the manufacture of PVC Leather cloth where Central Excise officers detected shortages of inputs and finished goods involving central excise duty. The authorized signatory of the company admitted the shortages and explained that the goods were cleared without payment of duty. Additionally, a truck carrying finished goods was intercepted without any central excise invoice, indicating a clear case of clandestine removal of goods.
Penalty under Section 11AC:
The appellant argued that penalty under Section 11AC was not warranted as they had deposited the duty before the issuance of the show cause notice, citing a decision by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court. However, the Departmental Representative contended that the case involved fraud or suppression of facts, making the provision of Section 11AC applicable. The Tribunal agreed with the Department's view, stating that the mere deposit before the notice does not negate the situation mentioned in Section 11AC.
Legal Precedents:
The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in a similar case, where it was held that if goods were cleared without payment of duty, Section 11A(2B) would not apply. The Tribunal also considered a decision by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, which reduced the penalty to 25% of the duty amount if the duty demanded was paid within 30 days of the order. In this case, the penalty was reduced to Rs. 47,643, which is 25% of the duty amount.
In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the penalty under Section 11AC due to the clandestine removal of goods and reduced the penalty amount to 25% of the duty paid before the issuance of the show cause notice, following legal precedents and interpretations of relevant provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
-
2009 (5) TMI 708
Issues involved:
1. Denial of exemption under Notification No. 40/06-Cus. for polyester fabrics under import.
2. Confiscation and penalty imposed on furniture import due to alleged misdeclaration.
3. Determination of Retail Sale Price (RSP) and excess quantity in light fittings import.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Denial of exemption under Notification No. 40/06-Cus. for polyester fabrics under import:
The appellant, M/s. Yashavi Enterprises, imported polyester fabrics under the Duty Free Import Authorization (DFIA) scheme seeking exemption under Notification No. 40/06-Cus. The Commissioner alleged misdeclaration and sought duty payment of Rs. 16,33,183. However, the Tribunal found that the imported fabrics were covered by DFIA and eligible for the exemption, as per the relevant provisions. Consequently, the demand for duty and confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act were deemed unsustainable, leading to the vacating of the confiscation and penalty imposed on M/s. Yashavi.
Issue 2: Confiscation and penalty imposed on furniture import due to alleged misdeclaration:
Regarding the import of furniture, the assessable value was enhanced by the authorities, and a fine and penalty were imposed on M/s. Yashavi for alleged misdeclaration. The Tribunal observed that the enhancement of value lacked proper notice to the importer and that there was no misdeclaration or violation of Foreign Trade Policy (FTP). Consequently, the fine and penalty were vacated as there was no justification for confiscation under Section 111 of the Act.
Issue 3: Determination of Retail Sale Price (RSP) and excess quantity in light fittings import:
In the case of light fittings import, discrepancies were noted in the declared RSP and quantity of items. The Tribunal upheld the determination of RSP for certain items based on market enquiries and accepted revisions made during the proceedings. Additionally, excess quantities were found, leading to a demand for duty. The Tribunal found the quantities were accurately ascertained and upheld the order regarding misdeclaration, confiscation under Section 111(m) and 111(l), and penalties. However, the fine and penalty amounts were reduced due to the goods not being confiscable under Section 111(d).
In conclusion, the Tribunal addressed each issue individually, considering the legal provisions and evidence presented, ultimately making decisions based on the merits of each case. The appeal of M/s. Yashavi Enterprises was disposed of with detailed reasoning provided for each aspect of the judgment.
-
2009 (5) TMI 707
Issues involved: Application for rectification of mistake u/s 35(C)(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 filed beyond the prescribed period of six months.
Summary:
The Commissioner of Central Excise sought rectification of a mistake in an order dated 12-7-2005/12-8-2005, concerning jurisdiction, due to the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004. The application was filed in October 2008, beyond the six-month limit prescribed by Section 35(C)(2) of the Act. The Department had approached the High Court, and the appeal was withdrawn with liberty to adopt an appropriate remedy before the Tribunal. However, the High Court's order did not grant liberty to file the rectification application beyond the six-month period. The Tribunal held that the High Court's order did not extend the limitation period for filing the rectification application. Consequently, the application filed beyond the limitation period was dismissed.
In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the rectification application as it was filed beyond the prescribed six-month period, despite the Department's argument based on the High Court's order.
............
|
9911796707
