|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 461 to 480 of 1046 Records
-
2008 (7) TMI 666
Issues:
1. Application for dispensing with pre-deposit of duty amount erroneously granted as rebate of countervailing duty (CVD).
2. Interpretation of Notification No. 21/2004 and subsequent amendment regarding rebate of CVD.
3. Applicability of Modvat credit and refund in case of exported final products exempted from central excise duty.
Analysis:
1. The case involved an application to dispense with the pre-deposit of duty amount of Rs. 26,00,044/-, which was erroneously granted as rebate of CVD paid by the appellant during the importation of raw materials used in manufacturing utensils later exported by them. The refund claim was initially granted under Notification No. 21/2004 but was later found to be in error, leading to proceedings for recovery of the refunded amount.
2. The appellant's advocate argued that an amendment to the explanation of Notification No. 21/2004 through Notification No. 12/2007 included CVD as a duty entitled to rebate, effective from 1-3-2007. The advocate contended that this amendment should be considered retrospective, allowing the appellant to claim CVD either as rebate or as a refund of Modvat credit. Reference was made to a Tribunal decision and a High Court decision supporting this argument.
3. The respondent's representative countered by stating that the amendment specifying CVD for rebate under Notification No. 21/2004 from 1-3-2007 could not be applied retrospectively. It was argued that the High Court decision cited by the appellant's advocate was not directly applicable as the appellant's final product was exempt from central excise duty, affecting the availability of Modvat credit for CVD.
4. The Tribunal found that the amendment to Notification No. 21/2004 adding CVD to the specified duties for rebate from 1-3-2007 could not be considered retrospective. The explanation in the original notification did not include CVD, and the subsequent amendment clarified the position without ambiguity, indicating legislative intent but not retroactive application.
5. Regarding the Modvat credit and refund issue, the Tribunal noted that the matter was contentious and arguable. The Tribunal observed that the High Court decision cited by the appellant was not entirely applicable since the appellant's final product was exempt from duty, raising doubts about the entitlement to Modvat credit for CVD.
6. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit 50% of the confirmed duty demand within twelve weeks, considering any prior payments made by the appellant. The compliance verification was scheduled for a later date.
This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, including the interpretation of relevant notifications and the applicability of Modvat credit in the context of the appellant's case.
-
2008 (7) TMI 665
Issues involved:
The judgment deals with the remission of duty on expired medicaments, reversal of Modvat credit, refund claims, appealable orders, and the power of the Tribunal to condone delay in filing appeals.
Remission of duty and refund claims:
The Commissioner granted remission of duty on expired medicaments subject to reversal of Modvat credit, which the appellants did under protest. Subsequently, they claimed a refund of the reversed credit amount based on the Larger Bench decision in Grasim Industries v. C.C.E., Indore. The authorities denied the refund claim, stating that the earlier order of remission with the condition of credit reversal had attained finality as it was not appealed against. The appellants argued that the communication letters from the Assistant Commissioner directing credit reversal were not appealable orders, citing precedents where such communications were deemed non-appealable. They also highlighted the Tribunal's power to condone delays in filing appeals.
Decision and reasoning:
The Tribunal found merit in the appellants' submissions, noting that the Commissioner should have passed an order in appealable form. The mere communication of the order by an officer below the rank of the Commissioner could reasonably lead the assessee to believe that no appeal was necessary. Therefore, the appellants were not at fault for not appealing against such communications. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for a fresh decision in line with the law established in the Grasim Industries case. The Tribunal clarified that the refund claim related to the case where the Commissioner had passed an appealable order was rejected, while the other appeals were disposed of accordingly.
This judgment emphasizes the importance of clear and appealable orders in matters of remission of duty and refund claims, ensuring that taxpayers are not disadvantaged by procedural complexities or misunderstandings regarding the appeal process.
-
2008 (7) TMI 664
Issues: Valuation of goods sold to related persons under Central Excise Valuation Rules.
In this judgment, the issue revolved around the valuation of goods sold by the appellants to their subsidiary company under the Central Excise Valuation Rules. The appellants argued that since the sale of batteries to their subsidiary constituted only 0.41% of their total production and were sold at the same or slightly higher price as to independent buyers, Rule 9 and Rule 10 of the Valuation Rules should not apply. On the other hand, the Respondent contended that the subsidiary was reselling the goods at a higher value to other customers, and thus, Rule 9 and Rule 10 should be applicable. The Tribunal noted the absence of specific rules covering situations where goods are partly sold to related persons and partly to independent buyers, leading to unnecessary litigation. The Tribunal referred to past Supreme Court decisions and its own precedent to support the appellants' argument that valuation based on the price of comparable goods sold to independent buyers is legally permissible.
The Tribunal observed that the Department had not raised any doubts regarding the sales to independent buyers, which should be prima facie accepted as arms length transactions. Citing Supreme Court decisions and its own precedent, the Tribunal held that when goods are sold to independent buyers at a similar price, it indicates that the relationship did not influence the price. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that it is legally permissible to assess the impugned goods based on the price of comparable goods sold to independent buyers. As a result, the Tribunal waived the requirement of pre-deposit during the pendency of the appeal.
-
2008 (7) TMI 663
The Revenue challenged the Commissioner (Appeals) order setting aside penalty and confirming duty demand with interest. The appellant procured goods from a 100% EOU, availed Cenvat credit but took credit on full duty paid. The Tribunal rejected the appeal, stating the appellant's reversal of credit upon noticing irregularity proved their bona fide.
-
2008 (7) TMI 662
Valuation - copper scrap imported by the appellants - Enhancement of value - Held that: - the prices in the LME bulletin for prime metal are only indicative and cannot be the sole basis for enhancing the value of copper scrap, particularly when the goods imported are copper scrap and not copper. Further there is no basis for holding that refining charges for refining scrap and conversion of the same to copper bar/rod will be US$ 150 per MT - LME prices are indicative and cannot be the basis for enhancing the value in the absence of corroborative evidence of contemporaneous imports at higher price - enhancement of the value is not justified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2008 (7) TMI 661
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi rejected Revenue's application for staying the operation of the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) as the respondent had produced the requisite certificate for exemption under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. The Tribunal noted that buyers can claim refund as per Section 11B, stepping into the shoes of the manufacturer. Therefore, the Revenue's stay petition was rejected.
-
2008 (7) TMI 660
Refund - Unjust enrichment - Held that: - The consistent case of the appellants has been that they had collected the disputed duty amount from its buyer on an understanding that the same would be returned to them if the item was decided to be non-excisable. The appellants have established this claim with documentary evidence submitted before the lower authorities - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2008 (7) TMI 659
Issues:
Refund claim rejection under Section 27(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 as time-barred.
Applicability of time limit for filing refund claim by Government organizations.
Consideration of refund claim under alternate sections of the Customs Act, 1962.
Analysis:
1. The appellants filed a refund claim of Rs. 3,47,752/- which was rejected as time-barred under Section 27(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The claim was submitted after the expiry of six months, citing non-delivery of imported goods as the reason.
2. The appellants argued that as they were under the Ministry of Fertilizer, Government of India's control, the one-year time limit under Section 27(1)(a) should apply to them, not the six months specified under Section 27(1)(b). They contended that since the Government of India held a significant share in their Co-operative Society, they should be considered a Government organization eligible for the extended time limit.
3. The Tribunal examined the shareholding structure of the appellants' organization and noted that while the Government of India held a substantial share (about 67%), there were also other Co-operative Societies with shareholdings. It was clarified that the mere presence of the Government of India as a major shareholder did not qualify the organization as a Government of India Organization. The Government's role was primarily related to providing subsidies to fertilizer manufacturers, not controlling the organization itself.
4. The appellants' plea to consider their refund claim under Section 13 or Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962, based on precedents, was rejected. The Tribunal highlighted that this plea was not raised before the lower authorities, making it a new argument presented for the first time at the Tribunal stage. Consequently, the Tribunal could not entertain this plea at that point.
5. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), rejecting the appeal against the refund claim rejection. The decision was based on the finding that the appellants did not meet the criteria to be considered a Government of India Organization, and the alternate plea for considering the claim under different sections of the Customs Act was not admissible due to its belated introduction in the proceedings.
6. The judgment was pronounced on 4-7-2008, concluding the legal proceedings regarding the refund claim rejection and the applicability of time limits under the Customs Act, 1962.
-
2008 (7) TMI 658
Issues involved: Appeal against the rejection of refund claim for interest paid on delayed duty payment.
Summary:
1. The appeal was filed by M/s. Arjay Apparel Industries Limited regarding the payment of duty on goods removed after a delay, utilizing Cenvat credit earned in a subsequent month, which was not allowed u/s Rule 3(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2002. The duty was eventually paid from PLA after a delay of 292 days, along with interest as per Rule 8(3) of CER 2002. The appellants sought a refund of the interest paid, citing precedents where interest was not payable if duty was paid before any Show Cause Notice was issued.
2. The lower authorities rejected the refund claim, stating that the duty payment was made only after the department pointed out the lapse, not voluntarily. The Tribunal, after considering both sides' arguments, found that there was no prohibition on the assessee paying the short paid amount using Cenvat credit. As the duty was eventually paid with a slight delay and no demand was made for the delay period, the interest payment was deemed unnecessary. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and ordered the refund of the interest paid.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2008 (7) TMI 657
Issues: Appeal against suspension of CHA license under CHALR 2004
Analysis:
1. Suspension of CHA License: The appeal was made against the suspension of the Customs House Agent (CHA) license of the appellant under Regulation 20(2) of the CHALR 2004. The license was suspended due to the Director of the company filing a Shipping Bill without authorization from the exporter, which was seen as an attempt to profit fraudulently from a manipulated invoice. The Shipping Bill in question was filed in July 2007, and the appellant argued that the goods were cleared without objection. It was noted that while a show cause notice was issued to the exporter and others, the present appellants had not received any notice. The Tribunal found that as the alleged offense occurred in July 2007 and the suspension order was issued about 8 months later in March 2008, immediate action in the form of suspension was not warranted. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions such as Sunshine Agency v. CC, Mumbai, International Shipping Agency v. CC(G), Mumbai, and a decision of the Madras High Court in East West Freight Carriers (P) Ltd. v. CC, Madras to support its decision to set aside the suspension order and allow the appeal.
2. Direction to Commissioner: The Tribunal clarified that while setting aside the suspension order, the Commissioner was still empowered to proceed against the appellants under the Regulations in accordance with the law. This direction ensured that the Commissioner could take appropriate action within the legal framework despite the appeal being allowed and the suspension order being revoked.
-
2008 (7) TMI 656
The appellate tribunal in Chennai ruled that "transformer oil waste" and "trichloroethylene waste" are not subject to excise duty based on precedent cases. The appeal was allowed, and the duty demand was set aside. (2008 (7) TMI 656 - CESTAT, CHENNAI)
-
2008 (7) TMI 655
Issues involved: Central excise duty demand under Notification No. 30/2004-C.E. for goods cleared without payment of duty, maintenance of separate records for inputs used, benefit of exemption under Notification No. 30/2004-C.E., compliance with Board's Circular No. 795/28/2004-CX.
Summary:
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad addressed the issue of a central excise duty demand of Rs. 24,884/- for goods cleared without payment of duty under Notification No. 30/2004-C.E. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand against the appellant for availing benefits under Notifications No. 29/2004-C.E. and No. 30/2004-C.E. simultaneously without maintaining separate records of inputs used. The Original Adjudicating Authority found that the appellant had maintained a separate production register for the goods manufactured and cleared, meeting the conditions of Board's Circular No. 795/28/2004-CX. However, on appeal by the Revenue, the Commissioner (Appeals) reversed the decision, imposed penalties, and demanded interest.
Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal noted that the Original Adjudicating Authority had verified the maintenance of a separate production register for exempted goods, as required by the Board's circular. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed discrepancies in the appellant's records regarding the use of duty-paid yarn in the manufacture of dutiable and exempted goods, leading to the denial of exemption benefits under Notification No. 30/2004-C.E. The Tribunal found the Commissioner's conclusions to be based on assumptions rather than evidence examination, and reinstated the Original Adjudicating Authority's logical decision, granting relief to the appellants.
The Tribunal's decision emphasized the importance of maintaining separate records for dutiable and exempted goods, as per the conditions of the relevant notifications and circulars. The appeal was allowed, and the stay petition was disposed of accordingly.
-
2008 (7) TMI 654
Issues:
- Duty demand on appellants M/s. Fenner India Ltd. (FIL) for movement of cotton yarn to job worker under Rule 96E without payment of duty.
- Whether impugned clearances of yarn qualified for movement without duty payment.
- Applicability of duty payment considering conversion of yarn into knitted fabrics and subsequent export.
- Compliance with Notification No. 47/94-C.E. (N.T.) dated 22-9-94 for clearance of cotton yarn for manufacturing knitted fabrics without duty payment.
Analysis:
1. Duty Demand on Appellants:
The Tribunal upheld the sustained demand of duty on FIL for the movement of cotton yarn to a job worker under Rule 96E without payment of duty. The impugned clearances of yarn were deemed ineligible for duty-free movement due to the job worker's facility not meeting the definition of a factory as per the rule. The duty demands were based on this non-compliance with the rule.
2. Conversion of Yarn and Export:
FIL argued that since the knitted fabrics manufactured from the yarn were eventually exported, and there was no evidence of diversion for home consumption, no duty should be payable. Citing precedents like Affan Shoes Pvt. Ltd. case and GTN Textiles Ltd. case, FIL contended that duty liability is deferred until goods enter the domestic market. The Tribunal agreed, emphasizing that the demands were not sustainable as the goods were not diverted for home consumption, aligning with the principles laid down in the cited cases.
3. Compliance with Notification No. 47/94-C.E.:
FIL also argued that the impugned demands were not valid as cotton yarn could be cleared for manufacturing knitted fabrics without duty payment and subsequent export under Notification No. 47/94-C.E. (N.T.). The Tribunal found merit in this argument, indicating that if FIL had followed the procedure under the notification, the confirmed liability would not have arisen. The decision in GTN Textiles Ltd. case further supported the position that duty payment was not required for goods exported, strengthening FIL's case.
In conclusion, the Tribunal vacated the impugned orders and allowed the appeals, emphasizing that the demands were raised due to procedural failures rather than actual liabilities. The decisions in the cited cases and the compliance with relevant notifications played crucial roles in determining the outcome in favor of FIL.
-
2008 (7) TMI 653
Issues involved: Interpretation of SSI exemption notification for cotton yarn manufacturers and utilization of MODVAT credit for duty payment on polyester-viscose blended yarn.
Interpretation of SSI exemption notification: The case involved a dispute where the respondents, engaged in cotton yarn manufacturing, availed SSI exemption for a period but were later denied the benefit by the original authority. The lower appellate authority allowed the SSI benefit without the respondents exercising the option at the start of the financial year. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions and held that early duty-paid clearances did not constitute opting out of SSI exemption. As subsequent clearances were in line with the notification, the respondents were deemed to have opted for SSI exemption from the beginning of the financial year. Therefore, the denial of SSI benefit was deemed incorrect.
Utilization of MODVAT credit: Another issue was the utilization of MODVAT credit by the respondents for duty payment on polyester-viscose blended yarn. The appellate authority approved this utilization, stating that duty on this product was required at the normal rate, not under SSI benefit. The Tribunal concurred with this decision, allowing the MODVAT credit for duty payment on the final product.
Judgment: After examining the records and arguments, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, upholding the lower appellate authority's decision to allow the SSI benefit and the utilization of MODVAT credit by the respondents.
-
2008 (7) TMI 652
Issues:
- Assessment of goods transferred to sister unit under Rule 8
- Applicability of comparable price for goods transferred to sister unit
- Interpretation of concurrent findings in favor of the assessee
Analysis:
1. Assessment of goods transferred to sister unit under Rule 8:
The Department contended that a significant quantity of production was transferred to the appellant's sister unit at a cost of production higher than the transfer price. The Department argued that Rule 8 should be applied in this case.
2. Applicability of comparable price for goods transferred to sister unit:
The Advocate for the respondent referred to a Mumbai Bench Tribunal decision in a previous case, where the assessment adopted the price of comparable goods for transfers to the sister unit. This decision was based on a Larger Bench ruling in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E., Raigad. The Tribunal noted that it would be illogical to impose duty on goods transferred to the appellant's own unit at a higher price than to third parties, especially when there was no indication of any improper transaction.
3. Interpretation of concurrent findings in favor of the assessee:
After considering both parties' arguments, the Tribunal found no justification to overturn the concurrent findings of the Original Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) that favored the assessee. The Tribunal highlighted that previous decisions supported the respondent's position, emphasizing the consistency in the application of pricing principles for intra-company transfers.
In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the Department's appeal, affirming the lower authorities' decisions in favor of the assessee. The judgment underscored the importance of pricing consistency and fairness in assessing goods transferred within the same entity, aligning with established legal precedents and principles.
-
2008 (7) TMI 651
Issues involved: Applicability of exemption Notification No. 5/98-C.E. (S.No. 69) and imposition of penalty.
Applicability of exemption Notification: The appeal dealt with the dispute regarding the applicability of exemption Notification No. 5/98-C.E. (S.No. 69) to the products manufactured by the appellant. The appellant's advocate acknowledged that a similar issue was previously addressed in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Delhi v. N.M. Nagpal (P) Ltd. The Tribunal's order dated 9-8-06, passed in compliance with the Supreme Court's directions, was unfavorable to the appellant. Consequently, the appellant did not contest the duty amounting to Rs. 1,91,690/- and the applicable interest. However, the appellant argued that there was no justification for imposing a penalty, as the issue primarily revolved around the legal interpretation of the notification's conditions, which had been conclusively settled by the Supreme Court.
Imposition of penalty: After considering the submissions from both sides, the Tribunal accepted the advocate's argument that no penalty should be imposed in the given circumstances of the case. Consequently, the duty demand was confirmed as uncontested, but the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- imposed on the appellant was set aside.
Conclusion: The appeal was disposed of with the confirmation of the duty demand and the setting aside of the penalty, as per the Tribunal's decision.
-
2008 (7) TMI 650
Issues Involved:
1. Liability to pay interest under Section 11AB for short payment of duty.
2. Applicability of interest payment when duty was paid immediately upon discovery of short payment.
3. Interpretation of Section 11AB in the context of short payment of duty.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Liability to pay interest under Section 11AB for short payment of duty
The case involved a situation where the respondent had initially discharged duty liability on UPS products by deducting Central Sales Tax (CST) from the price. Upon realizing that CST was not applicable, they paid the correct duty amount but were charged interest by the Deputy Commissioner. The Commissioner (Appeals) vacated the interest demand, citing a Tribunal decision. The Revenue appealed, arguing that interest under Section 11AB is payable from the month following when duty should have been paid.
Issue 2: Applicability of interest payment when duty was paid immediately upon discovery of short payment
The respondent contended that they should not be liable for interest as they paid the differential duty promptly upon realizing the error, referencing a High Court judgment. The High Court ruling highlighted that interest under Section 11AB applies when duty is short paid, but not when duty is paid promptly upon discovering the liability. The assessee in this case rectified the underpayment upon becoming aware of the correct duty amount.
Issue 3: Interpretation of Section 11AB in the context of short payment of duty
The Tribunal analyzed Section 11AB, which mandates interest payment when duty is short levied or paid. The Tribunal noted that the provision requires interest payment when duty is partially paid late. In this case, the duty was underpaid due to incorrect computation, leading to the application of Section 11AB. The Tribunal distinguished this case from others involving price revisions, emphasizing that the interest was correctly demanded as per statutory provisions.
In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, ruling in favor of the Revenue. The judgment underscored the importance of complying with Section 11AB regarding interest payment for short payment of duty, even when the underpayment is rectified upon discovery. The decision highlighted the statutory requirement for interest payment in cases of incorrect duty computation, affirming the original authority's order based on Section 11AB provisions.
-
2008 (7) TMI 649
Issues:
Allegation of clandestine removal of Pig Iron without payment of C.E. duty.
Acceptability of seized notebook as evidence for clandestine manufacture and clearance of Pig Iron.
Responsibility to prove allegations post self-assessment introduction in 1996.
Responsibility to explain seized records and entries in the notebook.
Appellant's attempt to avoid accountability using the label of "Notebook."
Analysis:
1. Allegation of Clandestine Removal:
The Appellant faced allegations of clandestinely removing unaccounted Pig Iron from their factory without paying C.E. duty. The accusation was based on recovered notebooks and loose sheets indicating discrepancies in production and removal quantities.
2. Acceptability of Seized Notebook:
The key issue revolved around the seized notebook maintained by the Manager (Operations) of the company. The Lower Adjudicator questioned the evidentiary value of the notebook and the lack of corroborative evidence. The Appellant argued against the notebook's validity as conclusive proof of clandestine activities.
3. Responsibility Post Self-Assessment Introduction:
Post the introduction of self-assessment in 1996, the responsibility to prove allegations shifted to the assessee. The Lower Adjudicator highlighted this shift and emphasized the need for the Appellant to disprove the charges against them with substantial reasoning.
4. Responsibility to Explain Seized Records:
The Manager (Operations) failed to appear before the authorities to explain the meticulously maintained records, raising doubts about the authenticity of the entries. The Appellant's attempt to avoid accountability by labeling the seized records as a mere "Notebook" was deemed unacceptable.
5. Appellant's Accountability and Labeling of Records:
The Appellant's evasion of summonses and failure to present the Manager (Operations) for clarification on the records raised concerns. The Appellant's unilateral decision to label the seized records as a "Notebook" without proper legal procedures was criticized, highlighting the need for adherence to legal obligations.
In conclusion, the impugned order of the Lower Authority was upheld, dismissing the appeal due to the Appellant's failure to provide substantial evidence and accountability in light of the allegations of clandestine activities.
-
2008 (7) TMI 648
Issues:
Classification of exported items under Customs Tariff - Rubber mats vs. rubber compounded sheets.
Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Cochin, regarding the correct classification of items exported by the respondents. The dispute revolved around whether the items were rubber mats or rubber compounded sheets under the Customs Tariff. The respondents argued that the items were rubber compounded sheets, while the department classified them as rubber mats under Chapter 4016, which the respondents strongly contested.
The Revenue challenged the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) based on various grounds. They argued that the Commissioner's reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court regarding DEPB benefits was not applicable to the classification issue under the Customs Tariff. They contended that the exported goods, being rubber mats, should not have been classified under headings 4005 and 4008 as they were cut to size and further worked, contrary to the provisions of Chapter Note 9 of Chapter 40.
Moreover, the Revenue highlighted that the rubber mats were vulcanized, making them ineligible for classification under Heading 4005, which pertains to unvulcanized rubber. They also cited a previous tribunal order that classified vulcanized rubber articles under 4016.19 of the Central Excise Tariff, supporting the classification of the exported goods as per Heading 4016 of the Customs Tariff.
Additionally, the Revenue argued that under Heading 4016, the specific description of "Floor covering and mats" covered the exported rubber mats under tariff item 40169100. They emphasized the principle that the most specific description in tariff headings should be preferred for classification. The Revenue contended that the issue of DEPB eligibility was separate from the Customs classification, and the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in relying on the High Court judgment in this context.
The Commissioner (Appeals) had observed that the goods were vulcanized rubber mats based on the chemical examiner's report, which indicated a change in classification from 4005 to 4016 due to vulcanization. The Commissioner also noted that the Rubber Board's technical officer confirmed the goods as vulcanized rubber sheets, further supporting the classification as rubber mats under Chapter 4016.
In their detailed analysis, the Tribunal found that the goods were indeed vulcanized, making them ineligible for classification under Heading 4005. They agreed with the Original Authority's decision, emphasizing that the High Court's judgment did not address the Customs classification issue. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the decision in favor of the Revenue, allowing their appeals.
-
2008 (7) TMI 647
Valuation - bonus amount - includibility - Held that: - there was no justification for treating the bonus amount as part of the price of the goods and demanding duty on that basis. The action is also patently unjust as it has been done without giving abatement for the penalties. Accordingly, the demand is set aside - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
............
|
9911796707
Advanced Search 
