|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 441 to 460 of 518 Records
-
2000 (3) TMI 78
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for deemed credit facility after crossing the prescribed limit of Rs. 75,00,000/-.
2. Interpretation of Notification No. 1/93-C.E. and Ministry's Order No. TS/36/94 TRU.
3. Validity of the Tribunal's decision in the case of Sri Venkateswara Steel Industries.
Summary:
1. Eligibility for Deemed Credit Facility:
The core issue was whether manufacturers who crossed the clearance limit of Rs. 75,00,000/- were entitled to the benefit of deemed credit facility as per Ministry's Order No. TS/36/94 TRU dated 1-3-1994, read with Notification No. 1/93-C.E. dated 28-2-1993, and the Chandigarh Central Excise Collectorate Trade Notice No. 81/94 dated 25-7-1994. The Tribunal concluded that re-rollers whose aggregate value of clearances exceeded Rs. 75,00,000/- and who were paying full Central Excise Duty were not eligible for the deemed credit benefit.
2. Interpretation of Notification No. 1/93-C.E. and Ministry's Order No. TS/36/94 TRU:
Notification No. 1/93-C.E. provided exemptions for specified goods up to an aggregate value of Rs. 75,00,000/-. Beyond this limit, no exemption was available, and full duty was applicable. The Ministry's Order dated 1-3-1994 allowed deemed credit for ingots and re-rollable materials for re-rollers availing the exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. The Tribunal emphasized that the term "availing of the exemption" meant currently benefiting from the exemption, which ceased once the clearance limit of Rs. 75,00,000/- was crossed.
3. Validity of the Tribunal's Decision in the Case of Sri Venkateswara Steel Industries:
The Tribunal reviewed its earlier decision in the case of Sri Venkateswara Steel Industries, which had allowed deemed credit even after crossing the Rs. 75,00,000/- limit. The Tribunal found that this decision did not correctly interpret the term "availing of the exemption" and clarified that the benefit of deemed credit was not available beyond the specified clearance limit.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that manufacturers who exceeded the clearance limit of Rs. 75,00,000/- were not entitled to the deemed credit facility. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were allowed, and those by the assessees were dismissed. Personal penalties, where levied, were set aside.
-
2000 (3) TMI 77
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 57-I and its relationship with the limitation prescribed under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the admissibility of Modvat credit by M/s. Rasan Detergents Pvt. Ltd. The respondent had availed Modvat credit on packaging material received from M/s. Orient Paper Mills, which was later used for job work and returned as printed packing material. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, stating that Modvat was not available since no duty was paid on the packaging material. The authority also argued that Rule 57-I does not specify any limitation period. The respondent appealed this decision, but the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original order. Subsequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling that the demand was time-barred as per Section 11A, since the credit was taken in August 1987, and the show cause notice was issued in August 1988.
The Tribunal considered the conflicting views of different High Courts on the interplay between Rule 57-I and Section 11A. It referenced cases such as Torrent Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Zenith Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, which offered differing interpretations. Additionally, the Tribunal noted the divergent opinions expressed by the High Court of Karnataka in Tungabhadra Steel Products Ltd. v. Superintendent of Central Excise. Given the conflicting precedents and the importance of the questions raised, the Tribunal decided to refer the matter to the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Section 35H of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
The Tribunal acknowledged that similar questions had been referred to the Supreme Court in previous cases, such as Collector of Central Excise v. Maradi Steel Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal, considering the significance of the unresolved issues and the absence of a Supreme Court decision on the matter, decided to refer the questions raised in the case for a decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Section 35H of the Act. The Tribunal directed the office to promptly forward the reference to the Supreme Court as per the statutory provisions.
In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision to refer the questions regarding the interpretation of Rule 57-I and its relationship with the limitation prescribed under Section 11A to the Hon'ble Supreme Court reflects the complexity and importance of the legal issues involved in the case. The conflicting judicial opinions and the absence of a definitive Supreme Court ruling necessitated the referral to seek clarity and uniformity in the application of the law.
-
2000 (3) TMI 76
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the decision in the case of Mohit Thakor should be recalled.
2. Whether the appeals of Dinkar Khindria and Dinesh Khindria should be reheard along with Mohit Thakor's appeal.
Summary:
Issue 1: Recall of Mohit Thakor's Case Decision
The Tribunal considered whether the decision in the case of Mohit Thakor, reported in 1994 (72) E.L.T. 865, should be recalled. The original order dated 17-8-1993 by the Collector of Customs, New Delhi, had absolutely confiscated two kgs. of foreign marked gold from Dinesh Khindria and imposed penalties on Dinkar Khindria, Mohit Thakor, and Dinesh Khindria. The Tribunal had allowed redemption of the gold on payment of a fine and reduced the penalty on Mohit Thakor. The appeals by Dinkar Khindria and Dinesh Khindria were heard separately, and it was proposed that the decision in Mohit Thakor's case be recalled due to unaddressed vital questions of law and fact.
Issue 2: Rehearing of Appeals
The Tribunal examined whether the appeals of Dinkar Khindria and Dinesh Khindria should be reheard along with Mohit Thakor's appeal. The Larger Bench heard arguments regarding the recall of the order in Mohit Thakor's case, with the advocate for the appellants arguing that the order affected their interests and was passed without hearing them. The departmental representative contended that there was no apparent mistake warranting rectification.
Legal Analysis:
The Tribunal analyzed the scope of rectification u/s 129B(2) of the Act, which allows for amending orders to rectify mistakes apparent from the record. The Tribunal emphasized that rectification is limited to obvious and patent mistakes, not debatable points of law or facts. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decisions in S. Balaram v. Volkart Brothers and Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh to underline that rectification does not cover errors of judgment or debatable issues.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the decision in Mohit Thakor's case was validly made and not open for review on the grounds of alleged errors in fact or law. The Tribunal has no power to recall an order under the guise of rectification of mistake. The observations by the Bench hearing separate appeals were against judicial propriety, and a coordinate Bench should not sit in judgment over another Bench's order.
Disposition:
The Tribunal decided that the appeals of Dinkar Khindria and Dinesh Khindria should be heard by the regular Bench after proper notice to the appellants and the Revenue. The reference was disposed of with instructions to post the appeals before the regular Bench.
-
2000 (3) TMI 75
The appeal was referred to the Larger Bench on the issue of limitation, but since it had already been decided against the appellant, the case is being remitted back to the West Regional Bench at Mumbai for further consideration. All connected papers are to be sent to the Regional Bench promptly.
-
2000 (3) TMI 74
Issues Involved:
1. Inclusion of amortized cost of moulds and dies in the assessable value of components.
2. Applicability of extended period for issuing the show cause notice.
Summary:
1. Inclusion of Amortized Cost of Moulds and Dies in Assessable Value:
The appellants, engaged in manufacturing moulded plastic components, faced a demand for duty based on the non-inclusion of amortized costs of moulds and dies in the assessable value of their components. The Department issued a show cause notice on 25-10-1991, raising a demand of Rs. 45,16,746 for the period from 1-10-1986 to 31-8-1990, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 4 lacs u/r 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, along with confiscation of land, buildings, plant, and machinery u/r 173Q(2).
The Tribunal examined conflicting decisions from Flex Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut - 1997 (91) E.L.T. 120 and CCE, Aurangabad v. Marathwada Glass Co. Pvt. Ltd. - 1999 (85) ECR 94. It was concluded that the value of moulds supplied by customers must be included in the assessable value of the finished product, as the moulds are essential for manufacturing the components. The Tribunal upheld the principle of proportional value addition as seen in Flex Industries Ltd. case, rejecting the contrary view from Marathwada Glass Co. Pvt. Ltd.
2. Applicability of Extended Period for Issuing the Show Cause Notice:
The Tribunal found that the show cause notice issued on 25-10-1991, invoking the extended period of five years, was not justified. The appellants had filed classification lists and price lists during the relevant period, making all transaction details available to the Department. The Tribunal held that there was no suppression or concealment of facts by the appellants, and the Department's delay in noticing the non-inclusion of mould costs did not warrant the extended period. Consequently, the show cause notice was deemed barred by limitation.
Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order in its entirety due to the show cause notice being barred by limitation. The Tribunal upheld the Department's action regarding the inclusion of mould costs but invalidated the demand due to the time-barred notice.
-
2000 (3) TMI 73
Issues: Whether coconut oil extracted from copra is liable to levy of cess under the Vegetable Oil Cess Act, 1983.
Analysis:
1. The appeal questioned whether coconut oil extracted from copra is subject to a levy of cess under the Vegetable Oil Cess Act, 1983. The Collector of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta, initially held that coconut oil is not liable to cess. However, a larger Bench was referred to due to conflicting decisions of the Allahabad High Court and Andhra Pradesh High Court regarding rice bran oil.
2. The analysis delved into the historical context of enactments related to cess on produce obtained in India. The Produce Cess Act, 1966, imposed a duty of excise on specific produce, including coconut, with liability on the mill occupier. Subsequently, the Coconut Development Board Act, 1979, and Copra Cess Act, 1979, were enacted, focusing on coconut and copra. The National Oil Seeds and Vegetable Oils Development Board Act, 1983, defined vegetable oil and excluded coconut from its purview.
3. The argument presented by the Revenue contended that coconut oil falls under the definition of vegetable oil in the National Oil Seeds and Vegetable Oils Development Board Act, 1983, thus making it subject to cess under the Vegetable Oil Cess Act, 1983. However, the analysis highlighted that the specific provisions of the 1979 Acts concerning coconut and copra were not nullified by the general provisions of the 1983 Acts, indicating the exclusion of coconut oil from the latter.
4. The judgment concluded that coconut oil extracted from copra is not liable to cess under the Vegetable Oil Cess Act, 1983, based on the legislative intent and the specific provisions of the relevant Acts. Additionally, the issue of whether rice bran oil qualifies as vegetable oil was deemed irrelevant to the decision in this case, as it did not impact the judgment on coconut oil.
5. Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming that coconut oil extracted from copra falls outside the scope of the Vegetable Oil Cess Act, 1983, Act 30 of 1983. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the legislative framework and the specific provisions governing the imposition of cess on coconut oil, ultimately clarifying the non-liability of coconut oil to cess under the mentioned Act.
-
2000 (3) TMI 72
Issues:
1. Central Excise duty demand on stolen goods.
2. Interpretation of the term "accident" in Rule 147.
3. Application of Rule 49(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Central Excise duty demand on stolen goods
The Revision Application was filed against the Order-in-Appeal confirming a demand of Central Excise duty on 12 CFCs stolen from the Bonded Shipping Room. The advocate argued that in cases of theft where there is no doubt, the loss should be allowed. She contended that since there was no clandestine removal, the provisions under which the Show Cause Notice was issued were not applicable. The advocate cited case laws to support her argument and emphasized that without finalizing assessments, the extended period under Section 11A could not be invoked. She also highlighted that the theft was promptly reported to the authorities, questioning the invocation of Rule 9(2) and Section 11A proviso. The Government, after considering the submissions, concluded that the theft was an unavoidable accident and decided to remit the Central Excise duty under Rule 49(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
Issue 2: Interpretation of the term "accident" in Rule 147
The judgment referred to a previous case where the term "accident" in Rule 147 was interpreted to include theft. It was noted that the goods were under physical control, and all possible precautions were taken to prevent revenue leakage. Despite the theft occurring due to heavy rainfall affecting visibility, the applicants had demonstrated due care and protection. The first occurrence of theft in their factory, coupled with immediate action taken by security guards and reporting to authorities, led the Government to consider the theft as an unavoidable accident within the meaning of the rule.
Issue 3: Application of Rule 49(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944
The judgment highlighted that Rule 49(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was applicable in determining whether the theft qualified as an avoidable accident. The Government, after analyzing the circumstances and the actions taken by the applicants, concluded that the theft was indeed an unavoidable accident. Consequently, the Revision Application was allowed, and the Central Excise duty involved was remitted based on the provisions of Rule 49(1).
In conclusion, the judgment delved into the specifics of the theft incident, the legal arguments presented, and the application of relevant rules to determine the nature of the theft as an unavoidable accident warranting the remittance of Central Excise duty.
-
2000 (3) TMI 71
The Revision Application was filed against an Order-in-Appeal and penalty imposed for exporting goods without a valid bond. The government concluded it was a technical breach, set aside the orders, and allowed the Revision Application.
-
2000 (3) TMI 70
The High Court of Judicature at Madras upheld the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal's decision not to refer the question of penal interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal ruled that penal interest could not be imposed on the assessee for clearances made before the law allowing such levy came into effect. The Court dismissed the petition.
-
2000 (3) TMI 69
Issues: Modvat credit for inputs, Interpretation of Rule 57A and 57E, Time of duty payment, Adjustment in duty credit, Substance over form in gatepass statement
In this judgment by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, the issue involved is regarding the eligibility of a manufacturer to claim Modvat credit for inputs. The Counsel for the Revenue argued that Modvat credit cannot be taken unless the duty payment for inputs is noted in the gate pass before delivery to the manufacturer of the final product. However, the Tribunal found that the manufacturer had received the inputs without the duty payment being stated in the documents. Despite this, the Tribunal held that the manufacturer could still claim the Modvat credit if it could prove through credible evidence that the inputs had indeed suffered excise duty.
The court analyzed the scheme of Rule 57A and 57E, emphasizing that the credit for duty paid on excisable goods used as inputs is available to a manufacturer only to the extent that the inputs had actually suffered excise duty. The timing of duty payment by the manufacturer of the inputs or its mention in the gatepass was deemed immaterial; what mattered was the actual payment of duty. Rule 57E provided for adjustments in duty credit, requiring the manufacturer of the final product to reduce the credit amount or pay in cash if there was a refund of duty paid by the manufacturer of the inputs. Similarly, if additional duty was recovered from the manufacturer of the inputs, the manufacturer of the final product was entitled to an additional credit.
The court stressed that the substance of the transaction should be examined over the form, emphasizing that Rule 57A does not prohibit a manufacturer from availing Modvat credit solely based on the timing of duty payment. The manufacturer should receive the full benefit of duty paid on inputs, regardless of when the payment was made. The only exception was for cases involving fraud, collusion, or contravention of provisions to evade duty payment. Ultimately, the court found no error in the Tribunal's order and dismissed the petition.
-
2000 (3) TMI 68
Issues:
1. Eligibility for benefits under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998.
2. Determination of duty payable under the scheme.
3. Challenge to the order passed by the Commissioner.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Eligibility for benefits under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998
The petitioner filed a declaration under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 and paid a portion of the tax arrears. The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise declined to extend the benefit under the scheme as the petitioner had not paid the entire amount as required by the scheme. The Court noted that the petitioner had not fulfilled the conditions of the scheme by only paying a partial amount of the tax arrears. The Court emphasized that the petitioner must adhere to the scheme's provisions entirely to avail of its benefits, and there was no legal basis to deviate from the scheme's requirements.
Issue 2: Determination of duty payable under the scheme
The petitioner argued that there was a mistake in the determination of duty, leading to an incorrect calculation of the duty payable. The petitioner contended that after rectifying the mistake, the actual duty payable was lower, and the amount already paid should be considered sufficient. However, the Court rejected this argument, stating that the petitioner must abide by the scheme's provisions without seeking independent assessments or calculations of duty. The Court emphasized that the petitioner should either comply with the scheme's requirements or challenge the proceedings under the Act, highlighting that there was no middle ground permissible under the scheme.
Issue 3: Challenge to the order passed by the Commissioner
The petitioner also challenged an order passed by the Commissioner, which the Court noted was appealable. The Court directed the petitioner to appeal the order and seek dispensation of pre-deposit of duty if necessary. Additionally, the Court ordered the refund of the amount paid by the petitioner along with the declaration without undue delay. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ petition but provided specific directions regarding the appeal process and refund of the amount paid by the petitioner.
This judgment underscores the importance of strict compliance with the provisions of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, and the necessity for taxpayers to adhere to the scheme's requirements fully to avail of its benefits.
-
2000 (3) TMI 67
The High Court of Judicature at Madras directed the Tribunal to refer a question of law regarding the proper course for the Revenue to recover credit taken by a manufacturer on inputs used in a product for which exemption had been availed under General Exemptions for Small Scale Industries.
-
2000 (3) TMI 66
The High Court of Judicature at Madras heard a case regarding Notification No. 16/94 stating conditions for applicability. The Tribunal held that failure to make a credit entry before June 30 does not disqualify the assessee from notification benefits. The Court directed the Tribunal to refer the question of law on the issue.
-
2000 (3) TMI 65
Issues:
Challenge against show cause notice under Section 35EE(4) of the Central Excise and Salt Act.
Analysis:
1. The appellant argued that Section 35EE(4) lacks a specified time limit unlike other statutes, but the Court must view it as a procedural provision and apply time limits from other sections for reasonableness and finality of orders.
2. The appellant referred to a previous order by the Central Government in 1986, considering excesses and shortages in production, to support the argument against the show cause notice issued in 1987.
3. The appellant contended that the Central Government acted unreasonably by appealing to the wrong forum post-amendment, which was later corrected after a writ petition quashed a Tribunal's direction to transmit papers to the Central Government.
4. The Court held that time limits from other enactments cannot be imported into Section 35EE(4) without specific incorporation, and the Central Government can consider different views for subsequent years despite past decisions.
5. The Court rejected the argument to quash the show cause notice based on preceding events, stating that the appellant must respond to the notice and present relevant facts.
6. The Court emphasized that the Central Government's revisional power should be exercised impartially and that the appellant must address the show cause notice with all pertinent information.
7. Ultimately, the Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, affirming the validity of the show cause notice and the Central Government's authority to review the appellant's case.
-
2000 (3) TMI 64
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the amending Notification No. 142/89 dated 16-5-1989, withdrawing the concession granted under Notification No. 175/86 dated 1-3-1986, is improper, arbitrary, discriminatory, or in violation of the rules of promissory estoppel.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Impropriety and Arbitrariness of Notification No. 142/89
The petitioners argued that the withdrawal of the exemption for Potassium Chlorate under Notification No. 142/89 was arbitrary and lacked valid reasons. They contended that the sudden withdrawal caused significant financial loss and hardship, as they had established their industries based on the earlier exemption.
The respondents countered that the decision to withdraw the exemption was a policy decision based on various factors, including the proliferation of Small Scale Industries (SSI) units manufacturing Potassium Chlorate, leading to revenue loss and safety concerns due to the hazardous nature of the chemical. The Government's decision was deemed necessary to control the excessive production and ensure public safety.
The court found that the Government had valid reasons for the withdrawal, including the recommendations from the Department of Chemicals and Petro-chemicals and the need to manage the economy and public safety. The decision was not arbitrary but a considered policy change.
Issue 2: Discrimination in Withdrawal of Exemption
The petitioners claimed that the withdrawal of the exemption for Potassium Chlorate alone, among all items under Notification No. 175/86, was discriminatory.
The respondents explained that the withdrawal was specific to Potassium Chlorate due to its hazardous nature and the proliferation of SSI units producing it, which was not the case for other exempted items. The court found this explanation reasonable and held that the withdrawal was not discriminatory, as it applied uniformly to all SSI units manufacturing Potassium Chlorate.
Issue 3: Violation of Promissory Estoppel
The petitioners argued that the withdrawal of the exemption violated the rules of promissory estoppel, as they had made significant investments based on the earlier notification.
The respondents argued that the petitioners applied for licenses after the amended notification was issued, and any commitments made by the petitioners were speculative. The Government had not promised a fixed period for the exemption, and it was within its rights to withdraw the exemption as part of its policy change.
The court held that there was no violation of promissory estoppel, as the Government had not made any promise regarding the duration of the exemption, and the petitioners' actions were based on their own anticipation.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the amending Notification No. 142/89 was within the competence of the Government, based on valid and convincing reasons. The withdrawal of the exemption for Potassium Chlorate was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory and did not violate the rules of promissory estoppel. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed.
-
2000 (3) TMI 63
Issues:
1. Writ of Certiorari to quash the order of Collector of Customs and Central Excise.
2. Writ of Mandamus for refund of excess amounts collected.
3. Interpretation of Section 27 of the Customs Act regarding refund of duty paid.
Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a writ of Certiorari to quash the Collector of Customs and Central Excise's order dated 20-10-1989. The petitioner imported consignments of PVC Electrical Insulation Tape and paid excess amounts of customs duty. The petitioner claimed that the goods were classifiable under a different tariff heading than assessed by the department. The refund applications were rejected on the grounds of limitation under Section 27 of the Customs Act. The petitioner argued that the duty collection was without jurisdiction and violated fundamental rights. The court examined the submissions and held that the order of rejection was not arbitrary and did not infringe the petitioner's rights under the Constitution. The court dismissed the writ petition seeking Certiorari.
2. The petitioner also filed writ petitions seeking a Writ of Mandamus for the refund of excess amounts collected by the Assistant Collector of Customs. The court noted that the refund claim was not filed within the stipulated period of six months as required by Section 27 of the Customs Act. The petitioner failed to prove that the duty was paid under protest, which would exempt them from the limitation period. The court concluded that since the petitioner did not meet the conditions for claiming a refund, the order of the Assistant Collector was justified. Therefore, the court dismissed all the writ petitions seeking Mandamus for refund of excess amounts collected.
3. The focal point of the arguments during the case was the interpretation of Section 27 of the Customs Act, which deals with the claim for refund of duty paid. The section specifies the time limit for making an application for a refund of duty paid. The court highlighted that the petitioner, being a limited company, fell under a specific category that required the refund application to be made within six months from the date of payment of duty. The court emphasized that the exemption from the limitation period applied only to those who paid the duty under protest. Since the petitioner failed to provide evidence of paying the duty under protest, they were not eligible to claim a refund beyond the stipulated period. Consequently, the court dismissed all the writ petitions related to the interpretation of Section 27 of the Customs Act.
In conclusion, the court dismissed all the writ petitions seeking Certiorari and Mandamus for the refund of excess amounts collected by the Assistant Collector of Customs. The court held that the orders passed by the authorities were justified, and no interference was warranted. The court also emphasized the importance of complying with the statutory provisions, such as the time limit specified in Section 27 of the Customs Act, for claiming a refund of duty paid.
-
2000 (3) TMI 62
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowed the petition regarding a demand of Rs. 3,40,000 under the Central Excise Act for purchases made by the petitioner. The Court quashed the Tribunal's order and granted unconditional stay on the recovery of duty demanded, citing the need for uniformity in such cases. The appeal is to be heard expeditiously.
-
2000 (3) TMI 61
The Supreme Court of India ruled that interest on warehoused goods is an accessory to the principal amount. The appeal regarding payment of interest on goods warehoused under the DEEC scheme was dismissed. The Tribunal's decision was upheld based on the principle that interest is not payable if the principal amount is not paid. (Citation: 2000 (3) TMI 61 - SC)
-
2000 (3) TMI 60
The High Court at Calcutta ruled that no order can be passed on encashing a bank guarantee until the appeal is heard. The Authority must dispose of the appeal and stay application within four weeks. No bank guarantee will be encashed until the appeal is resolved. The writ petition was disposed of without costs. No allegations were admitted as no affidavits were used. Xeroxed certified copies of the order will be provided to the parties within seven days. All parties must act on a Xeroxed signed copy of the order.
-
2000 (3) TMI 59
Issues:
Challenge to impugned order on pre-deposit under Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944.
Analysis:
1. The writ petitioners challenged the order dated 16th June, 1999, requiring a pre-deposit of Rs. 50 lakhs under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The disputes involved discounts, distribution expenses, sales tax, and notional interest.
2. The appellate authority upheld distribution expenses and sales tax but remanded other issues for further hearing. The order of demand was to be considered by the Assistant Commissioner following guidelines based on the Metal Box (I) Ltd. v. CCE, Madras case.
3. The petitioners argued that the maximum demand, excluding distribution expenses and sales tax, would be Rs. 4,20,291.09, making the pre-deposit of Rs. 50 lakhs disproportionate.
4. Section 35F allows for a deposit pending appeal, with discretion to dispense with the deposit if it causes undue hardship. The petitioners contended that the authority should impose pre-deposit rationally, considering a prima facie case and hardship.
5. Legal precedents were cited to support the argument that a prima facie case need not guarantee success but should be arguable. Similar judgments under the Customs Act and Central Excise Act emphasized the importance of considering the appellant's case and conduct.
6. The respondents argued for the imposition of pre-deposit based on the confirmed demand and relevant legal judgments regarding notional interest and distribution expenses.
7. The court found a prima facie case regarding notional interest and questioned the remand of issues while imposing a penalty under Section 35F, deeming it unsustainable.
8. The judgment clarified that notional interest cannot be added to the assessable value based on Supreme Court rulings.
9. The writ petition was disposed of, directing the authority to reconsider the pre-deposit in light of the judgment within four weeks, subject to depositing the admitted sum. The pre-deposit of Rs. 50 lakhs was not sustained pending the authority's reconsideration.
10. No costs were awarded, and parties were entitled to certified copies of the judgment within seven days.
....
|
9911796707
