|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 282 Records
-
1997 (6) TMI 234
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi dismissed the appeal by the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta challenging the order of the Collector (Appeals) regarding show cause notices issued to a manufacturer of Airconditioners and Water Coolers. The Collector (Appeals) set aside the demands made in the show cause notices as they were barred by time, citing that the allegations of suppression of facts with intent to evade duty were not substantiated. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Collector (Appeals) as there was full disclosure of extra charges collected by the assessee in separate letters to the Assistant Collector.
-
1997 (6) TMI 233
The appeal concerns the correct classification of Harrow discs and Hammer under the tariff. The Tribunal concluded that the items should be classified as forged products under the tariff, not under article 68. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. (Case: Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, NEW DELHI, Citation: 1997 (6) TMI 233 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI)
-
1997 (6) TMI 232
Issues: Classification of products under Tariff Item No. 26A, duty payment for copper scales, retrospective demands for duty
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, CALCUTTA involved an appeal regarding the classification of products under Tariff Item No. 26A and the duty payment for copper scales. The appellants had claimed benefits under Notification No. 174/84-C.E. for unwrought copper products. The Assistant Commissioner initially approved the classification but later issued a show cause notice challenging it. Another notice was issued for duty payment on the copper scales under a different tariff item. The Assistant Commissioner then confirmed the duty demand, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.
The appellant's representative argued that once the classification was approved, seeking reclassification and demanding differential duty was unjust. They relied on a Tribunal judgment to support their claim. On the other hand, the respondent cited a Supreme Court judgment stating that demands for retrospective periods could be upheld in such cases. The Tribunal considered these contentions and examined relevant judgments.
The Tribunal found that the facts of the case aligned with a Supreme Court judgment regarding duty demands. They noted that the show cause notice did not seek reclassification but focused on demanding duty based on a different classification assumption. Considering the timing of the judgments and the specific circumstances, the Tribunal decided to follow the precedent cited by the appellant's advocate. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturned the lower orders, and directed appropriate relief as necessary.
-
1997 (6) TMI 231
The judgment relates to excisability of sawn timber and waste arising therefrom. The Tribunal held that sawn timber does not satisfy the requirements of 'manufactured goods' and is not liable to Central Excise duty. The decision was based on previous cases and upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeals.
-
1997 (6) TMI 230
Issues:
Classification of dental spittoon bowls under Notification No. 66/88 for exemption.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Background: The appeal challenges the rejection of exemption for dental spittoon bowls under Notification No. 66/88 by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), concerning their classification as integral parts of dentists' chairs.
2. Appellants' Claim: The appellants argued that the spittoon bowls are essential components of dentists' chairs and should be considered as exempt under Notification 66/88, citing precedents and asserting their integral role in dental equipment.
3. Department's Argument: The Department contended that the classification of opal glass bowls should fall under Heading 70.17, not covered by the relevant notifications, thus disqualifying them from exemption.
4. Tribunal's Analysis: The Tribunal examined the nature of dentists' chairs, emphasizing the inclusion of mouth rinsers with spittoon bowls, supported by evidence from a dental equipment leaflet and affidavits confirming the integral nature of spittoon bowls in dental chairs.
5. Classification Dispute: The Department raised concerns over the classification of the bowls under Chapter 90, while the lower authorities classified them under 90.33, but the Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not challenge this classification, emphasizing the importance of notice for changing classification.
6. Exemption Criteria: The Tribunal highlighted the exemption criteria under Notification 65/88 for medical equipment and accessories, including electrically operated dental chairs, with no dispute over the exemption for dental chairs themselves.
7. Conclusion: Considering the evidence presented and the exemption provisions, the Tribunal set aside the lower order, allowing the appeal based on the integral role of dental spittoon bowls in dentists' chairs, regardless of the specific classification, and the lack of challenge to the dentists' chair classification.
In summary, the judgment focused on the classification and exemption of dental spittoon bowls under relevant notifications, emphasizing their integral role in dentists' chairs based on evidence and legal provisions, ultimately allowing the appeal due to the established importance of spittoon bowls in dental equipment.
-
1997 (6) TMI 229
The Revenue filed an appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) decision granting benefit of Notification No. 47/84-C.E. to winding wires of copper manufactured by the respondents. The Revenue argued that the wire rods used were not duty paid, but the Tribunal found that the winding wires were indeed made from wire rods and that exemption from duty on the wire rods satisfied the conditions of the notification. The appeal by the Revenue was rejected.
-
1997 (6) TMI 228
Issues:
Challenge to disallowance of Modvat credit on industrial tapes used in the manufacture of PU foams.
Detailed Analysis:
The appellants, manufacturers of PU foams, challenged the disallowance of Modvat credit on industrial tapes by the Commissioner (Appeals). Initially, the Department disputed the classification of PU foams under Chapter Heading 39.21, which was resolved in favor of the appellants. The dispute in this appeal centered around the claim for Modvat credit on industrial tapes used in manufacturing PU foams. The Asstt. Collector had allowed the Modvat credit on industrial tape, considering it an input for the final product. However, the Collector (Appeals) disagreed, stating that industrial tapes were merely protective or decorative articles and not essential for production.
The appellants argued that industrial tapes were crucial for the durability of PU foams and were part of the manufacturing process. They contended that industrial tapes were necessary for the product to reach the RG 1 stage. The appellants cited various tribunal decisions emphasizing that any component used in the manufacturing process or required to make the article marketable should be considered a raw material or component eligible for Modvat credit.
On the other hand, the Department argued that industrial tapes did not alter the character of PU foams and were not essential inputs for Modvat credit eligibility. They referred to Chapter Note 10 of Chapter 39, stating that further worked sheets or strips were not covered under sub-heading 39.21. The Department contended that industrial tapes were merely decorative or added to the durability of the foam, not qualifying as eligible inputs.
After considering the submissions, the judge noted that industrial tapes were used in the manufacture of PU foams and were crucial for the product's marketability and durability. The judge emphasized that the essential requirement for Modvat credit eligibility was the use of an input in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product. As industrial tapes met this criterion, the judge found the appellants' case well-founded and allowed the Modvat credit on industrial tapes. The judge set aside the disallowance of credit and confirmed the appeal with the modification of allowing the credit of Rs. 11,376 to the appellants.
-
1997 (6) TMI 227
Issues Involved:
1. Clubbing of clearances of M/s. Paramount Electro Plating Works (PEP) and M/s. Paramount Engineering Corporation (PEC)
2. Demand of duty based on unrecorded clearances
3. Validity of statements and evidence
4. Limitation period for raising the demand
5. Penalty imposition and quantum
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Clubbing of Clearances:
The central issue was whether the clearances of M/s. Paramount Electro Plating Works (PEP) and M/s. Paramount Engineering Corporation (PEC) should be clubbed for duty purposes. The lower authority concluded that the production of excisable goods was carried out at PEP's premises, and only polishing was done at PEC. Statements from key individuals, including the managing partner of PEP and the proprietor of PEC (who is his son), supported this finding. The Tribunal upheld this conclusion, noting that no evidence was provided to show that PEC had the necessary machinery for manufacturing the goods. Therefore, all clearances were considered to have been made by PEP to exploit the exemption notification.
2. Demand of Duty Based on Unrecorded Clearances:
The duty demand included both recorded and unrecorded clearances. The recorded clearances were not disputed. However, for unrecorded clearances, conflicting statements were presented: one set indicated Rs. 75,000 per month, while another stated Rs. 2.5 lakhs per year. The Tribunal noted that the lower authority should have analyzed a specific register (Sl. No. 28 of the mahazar dated 2-5-1990) that contained details of unrecorded sales. The case was remanded for re-examination of the quantum of unrecorded clearances based on this register.
3. Validity of Statements and Evidence:
The appellants argued that the statements relied upon by the lower authority were not voluntary. However, the Tribunal found no evidence or specific claims of coercion or compulsion. The statements had not been retracted, and no cross-examination of the officers was sought. The Tribunal held that the statements were admissible and credible.
4. Limitation Period for Raising the Demand:
The appellants contended that the demand was time-barred, as the authorities were aware of the units' existence and their manufacturing activities. The Tribunal, however, agreed with the department that the appellants had suppressed information with the intent to evade duty, justifying the extended limitation period.
5. Penalty Imposition and Quantum:
The Tribunal acknowledged the appellants' involvement in clandestine removal and misuse of documents from another firm. Given the closure of the unit and the death of the managing partner, the Tribunal reduced the penalty on the company to Rs. 40,000 and on Shri Ravi to Rs. 10,000.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the clubbing of clearances and the demand of duty for recorded clearances. For unrecorded clearances, the case was remanded for re-examination based on the specific register. The validity of the statements was affirmed, the extended limitation period was justified, and the penalties were reduced considering the circumstances.
-
1997 (6) TMI 226
Issues:
1. Classification of imported goods as consumer goods and eligibility for OGL import under 1992-97 EXIM Policy.
2. Interpretation of the definition of consumer goods and capital goods.
3. Application of relevant case laws and rulings in determining the nature of the imported goods.
Analysis:
1. The case involved M/s. Asian Power Controls Ltd. appealing against an Order-in-Original regarding the classification of Honda Kerosene Pumps as consumer goods. The appellant claimed the goods were not consumer goods and were freely importable under the EXIM Policy. The Commissioner of Customs held the goods as consumable durables, requiring an import license. A penalty was imposed, leading to the appeal.
2. The appellant argued that the pumps were not consumer goods but industrial machinery, citing specifications and catalog details showing industrial applications. They contended that the pumps fell under a specific heading and were freely importable under the EXIM Policy. The definition of consumer goods and capital goods was crucial in determining the nature of the imported pumps.
3. The dispute centered on whether the imported Honda Kerosene Pumps qualified as consumer goods under the EXIM Policy. The appellant relied on the catalogue specifications and Chartered Engineer's certificate to support their claim that the pumps were capital goods for industrial use, not consumer goods. The Tribunal analyzed the relevant provisions of the EXIM Policy and considered case laws to conclude that the pumps were not consumer goods but capital goods, thus allowing the appeal and quashing the impugned order.
This detailed analysis highlights the key arguments, legal interpretations, and conclusions drawn by the Appellate Tribunal in the judgment regarding the classification of the imported goods and their eligibility for OGL import under the EXIM Policy.
-
1997 (6) TMI 225
Issues:
1. Validity of Modvat credit on duty paid on steel products.
2. Acceptance of carbon copy of delivery challan cum invoice for Modvat credit.
3. Verification of the practice of issuing only one copy of challans by SAIL.
4. Interpretation of relevant documents for Modvat credit.
5. Concerns regarding potential revenue hazards due to allowing credit on carbon copy.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Validity of Modvat credit on duty paid on steel products
The department appealed to the Collector (Appeals) challenging the validity of Modvat credit claimed by the assessee on duty paid for steel products manufactured by Steel Authority of India (SAIL). The dispute centered around the prescribed document for claiming credit, specifically the delivery challan cum invoice issued by SAIL. The Collector (Appeals) considered certificates issued by SAIL and accepted the practice of issuing only a carbon copy of the challan to customers, which was marked as 'Customers copy'. This practice was deemed acceptable for claiming Modvat credit, as per Trade Notices, thereby upholding the assessee's contention.
Issue 2: Acceptance of carbon copy of delivery challan cum invoice
The Collector (Appeals) initially accepted the respondent's argument regarding the validity of the carbon copy of the challan for claiming Modvat credit. However, he conditioned this acceptance on independent verification from SAIL confirming the issuance of only one carbon copy to customers. The order stipulated that if such verification did not confirm the practice, the departmental appeal would be upheld, indicating a potential reversal of the initial decision.
Issue 3: Verification of the practice of issuing one copy of challans by SAIL
The Collector's order contained a requirement for independent verification from SAIL regarding the issuance of only one carbon copy of the challan to customers. The order implied that the accuracy of the information provided by SAIL needed confirmation to maintain the validity of the Modvat credit claimed by the assessee.
Issue 4: Interpretation of relevant documents for Modvat credit
The judgment delved into the interpretation of documents specified for claiming Modvat credit, emphasizing the distinction between original and carbon copies. While the Board's circular referenced the delivery challan cum invoice, the judgment highlighted the relevance of copies in the context of Modvat regulations. The analysis suggested that credit could be based on copies issued to customers, as evidenced by the practice followed by SAIL and the potential retention of originals by the company.
Issue 5: Concerns regarding revenue hazards
The judgment acknowledged potential revenue risks associated with allowing credit based on carbon copies of documents. It raised concerns about the possibility of duplicate claims if multiple copies of challans were in circulation. The need for detailed inquiry into SAIL's practices, including the number of copies issued and safeguards against duplication, was emphasized to mitigate revenue hazards and ensure compliance with Modvat regulations.
In conclusion, the appellate tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and directing further inquiry and a clear decision by the Collector (Appeals) to address the complexities surrounding Modvat credit claims and document verification processes.
-
1997 (6) TMI 224
Issues involved:
- Denial of Modvat credit on the grounds of address discrepancy, rubber-stamped invoices, and defective dealer's invoices.
Address Discrepancy Issue:
The Tribunal considered the denial of Modvat credit due to the address on duty paying documents differing from the actual location where goods were received and utilized. It was noted that previous cases established that such discrepancies should not be a basis for disallowing Modvat credit. The Tribunal emphasized that minor technical lapses should not negate the benefits of the law. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the denial of credit based on this ground.
Rubber-Stamped Invoices Issue:
Regarding the denial of Modvat credit due to invoices being rubber-stamped instead of pre-printed, the Tribunal analyzed the relevant rules and precedents. It was clarified that the rules only require specific markings on invoices, not necessarily pre-printed copies. Citing previous cases, the Tribunal highlighted that technical issues like rubber stamping should not hinder the legitimate benefit of Modvat credit. The Tribunal overturned the denial of credit based on this reason.
Defective Dealer's Invoices Issue:
The Tribunal addressed the rejection of Modvat credit based on alleged defects in dealer's invoices despite manufacturer's invoices being deemed sufficient. It was noted that the Assistant Collector erred in not considering the manufacturer's invoices adequately before disallowing the credit based on dealer's invoices. The Tribunal directed a reevaluation of the manufacturer's invoices to determine the eligibility for Modvat credit. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed.
Separate Judgement:
The Tribunal concluded by setting aside the penalty imposed and disposing of the appeal in favor of the appellant, allowing the Modvat credit on all disputed grounds and remanding the case for further verification based on manufacturer's invoices.
-
1997 (6) TMI 223
Issues involved:
1. Alleged clandestine removal of detergent powder without payment of duty.
2. Burden of proof on the Department to establish clandestine removal.
3. Nature of despatches reflected in the "Material Outgoing Slips."
4. Weight calculation of detergent powder bags cleared by the appellants.
5. Limitation period for issuing the show cause notice.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Alleged clandestine removal of detergent powder without payment of duty
The case revolved around the appellant company's alleged clandestine removal of detergent powder to M/s. H.K. Industries without payment of duty. The Department proposed a duty demand of Rs. 4,60,971.00 based on the despatches reflected in the "Material Outgoing Slips."
Issue 2: Burden of proof on the Department to establish clandestine removal
The appellant argued that the Department failed to produce sufficient legal evidence to establish the clandestine removal beyond doubt. The burden of proof was emphasized, and the appellant contended that the Department did not discharge its burden adequately.
Issue 3: Nature of despatches reflected in the "Material Outgoing Slips"
The appellant claimed that the despatches shown in the "Material Outgoing Slips" were of semi-finished detergent powder sent to M/s. H.K. Industries for seiving/screening during machinery breakdowns. However, the Department countered that there was no indication in the slips to support the claim that the goods were semi-finished.
Issue 4: Weight calculation of detergent powder bags cleared by the appellants
The appellants challenged the weight calculation of the detergent powder bags, arguing that there was no evidence to show that the bags were of 50 kgs each. The adjudicating authority justified the weight calculation based on the absence of contrary evidence from the appellants.
Issue 5: Limitation period for issuing the show cause notice
The appellants contended that the demand was barred by the limitation of six months as the show cause notice was issued after the expiry of the prescribed period. However, the Tribunal rejected this plea citing precedents and upheld the demand for duty.
In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, confirming the duty demand of Rs. 4,60,971.00. The personal penalty imposed on the appellants was reduced from Rs. 2.00 lakh to Rs. 1.00 lakh. The judgment emphasized the importance of maintaining proper records and meeting the burden of proof in cases of alleged clandestine removal to avoid adverse legal consequences.
-
1997 (6) TMI 222
The case involved the classification of "Time Recording Clocks" under Central Excise Tariff. The appellant argued for classification under Heading 91.05, but the department classified them under Heading 91.06. The Tribunal upheld the classification under Heading 91.06 based on the nature of the goods as Time Recorders. The appeal was dismissed.
-
1997 (6) TMI 221
Issues:
Classification of steel grinding balls under Central Excise Tariff - Applicability of Tariff Heading 7308.90 vs. Heading 7208 - Misdeclaration of goods in classification list - Liability for duty payment.
Analysis:
The appellant appealed against an order classifying steel grinding balls under Tariff Heading 7308.90 by the Collector of Central Excise. The appellant was accused of not filing a classification list for approval, leading to misdeclaration of the product as "forged steel grinding media" instead of the accurate description "forged steel grinding media ball." This misdeclaration resulted in the clearance of goods without duty payment.
The appellant contended that the goods were pieces roughly shaped by forging and should be classified under Heading 72.08, citing a Tribunal decision supporting this classification. However, the Revenue argued for classification under Heading 7308.90. The Tribunal noted that the forged steel grinding balls were fully finished products at the time of clearance, with no further processing by the appellant or the consignee.
The Tribunal distinguished a Supreme Court decision involving TISCO, where finished goods emerged only after precision machining by the railways. In contrast, the steel grinding balls in this case were complete items before clearance, making the TISCO judgment inapplicable. The Tribunal found the steel grinding balls to be classifiable under sub-heading 7308.90, encompassing other articles of iron and steel not specified elsewhere.
The manufacturing process of the steel grinding balls indicated that they were finished articles of steel used directly in cement factories without additional processing, supporting their classification under sub-heading 7308.90. The Tribunal agreed that the appellant had not fully described the goods in the classification list, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and upholding of the classification under Tariff Heading 7308.90.
-
1997 (6) TMI 220
The appeal was against Order No. 147/92, dated 13th March, 1992, regarding the classification of imported consignment as parts of flow meter. The appellant argued that Rules of interpretation do not apply to matters of exemption or ITC policy. The Tribunal agreed, citing previous decisions, and ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.
-
1997 (6) TMI 219
The judgment concerns an application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty. The dispute is regarding whether certain goods should be considered inputs for duty credit. The applicant argues the goods are refractory materials, while the department contends they are foundry fluxes. The Tribunal finds in favor of the applicant, stating there is a strong prima facie case for waiver of deposit due to lack of evidence of non-compliance with rules. The deposit of duty and penalty is dispensed with.
-
1997 (6) TMI 218
The appeal was against the rejection of a claim for customs duty exemption on imported medical equipment parts. The Collector rejected the claim as the parts were not specified in the relevant notification. The Tribunal found that the parts were indeed eligible for exemption under a different notification and allowed the appeal.
-
1997 (6) TMI 217
Issues: Classification under Notification No. 67/88-C.E. for Ice cream cups, Ash Trays, and Flower Vases.
In this case, the appellants sought the benefit of Entry at Serial No. 2 of Notification No. 67/88-C.E. for Ice cream cups, Ash Trays, and Flower Vases. The Assistant Collector allowed the concession for Ice cream cups but denied it for the other two products. The Collector (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the current appeal.
The appellants referenced a previous judgment in their favor regarding the classification of "Mugs" under the same notification. However, the Departmental Representative argued that Flower Vases and Ash Trays do not fall under the specific list of Tableware mentioned in the notification.
Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal examined the relevant entry in the notification, which specifically listed items like jugs, cups, plates, drinking glasses, and bowls under Tableware of glass. The Central Excise Tariff sub-item 70.15 covered various articles of glass used for different purposes but the contested notification only applied to Tableware. The Tribunal emphasized that the notification should be strictly construed, and benefits could only be extended to goods similar or identical to those named. Since Flower Vases and Ash Trays did not fit within the specified categories, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the Collector's decision.
-
1997 (6) TMI 216
Issues: Appeal against Order-in-Original, Contravention of Central Excise Rules, Confiscation of Goods, Imposition of Penalty, Reduction of Redemption Fine and Penalty, Interpretation of Rule 173Q.
Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an appeal against Order-in-Original No. 161/CE/PPL/MRD/93, alleging contravention of Rule 53 and 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Officer found finished goods worth Rs. 19,24,135/- with excise duty of Rs. 3,17,481/- in excess of entries in the RG 1 Register, leading to a Show Cause Notice. The Deputy Collector of Central Excise passed an order confiscating the goods and imposing a redemption fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- and a personal penalty of Rs. 50,000. The Collector (Appeals) reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 75,000/- and the penalty to Rs. 25,000/-.
2. The appellant's counsel argued that the goods were not at the RG 1 stage, emphasizing that certain items were yet to be fitted in the machinery. They contended that the goods were tailor-made and not fully finished. Despite these submissions in response to the Show Cause Notice, the authorities did not consider these arguments.
3. The respondent's representative highlighted that the goods were found fully finished and not entered in the RG 1 Register. The Dy. Manager Accounts confirmed this in a statement and did not retract it. The appellant's argument that the goods were not fully finished was dismissed by the authorities.
4. The Tribunal observed that the goods worth Rs. 19,24,135/- with excise duty of Rs. 3,17,481/- were seized as fully finished and unaccounted for in the RG 1 Register. The appellant's claim that the goods were not fully finished was contradicted by the statement of the Dy. Manager Accounts. The authorities also noted that control panels had been lying unaccounted for in the factory for two years.
5. The Tribunal referenced the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and previous Tribunal judgments, stating that goods can only be confiscated under Rule 173Q(A) when removed from the factory in contravention of any rule. As there was no evidence of goods being removed without duty payment, the confiscation was not justified.
6. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of confiscation and redemption on payment of fine. The personal penalty was reduced to Rs. 10,000 for non-maintenance of statutory records under Rule 173Q and Rule 53 of the Central Excise Rules. The appellant was granted any consequential relief as per the law, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.
-
1997 (6) TMI 215
Issues:
1. Eligibility for exemption under Notification 103/61 for set-off of duty on imported intermediates used in manufacturing S.O. Dyes.
2. Transfer of credit balance accumulated under Notification 103/61 to Modvat credit account under Rule 57H.
3. Interpretation of transitional provisions under Rule 57H for transferring credit balance.
Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the eligibility of the respondents for exemption under Notification 103/61, allowing set-off of duty on imported intermediates used in manufacturing S.O. Dyes. The Asstt. Commissioner initially denied permission to transfer the accumulated credit balance of Rs. 20,88,694.47, but the Commissioner (Appeals) later held in favor of the respondents, allowing the transfer.
2. The main issue before the Tribunal was whether the accumulated credit balance under Notification 103/61 could be transferred to the Modvat credit account under Rule 57H. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the transfer based on the Tribunal's decision in M/s. Sandoz (India) Ltd. v. Collector, which held that if the set-off is allowable, the balance should be transferred under Rule 57H(3).
3. The revenue contended that the transfer was not permissible, citing a Tribunal decision in A.C.C. v. Collector, where it was held that when a notification is rescinded, the exemption granted would no longer be available. However, the respondent's counsel argued that the case law relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) supported their position, emphasizing that the credit balance should not be wiped out upon rescinding of the notification.
4. The Tribunal rejected the revenue's argument, stating that the transfer of the credit balance earned under Notification 103/61 was possible under Rule 57H. The Tribunal noted that the respondents had opted for Modvat credit before the dispute was resolved, and as the dispute was only settled later, they were entitled to the transition facility under Rule 57H. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, emphasizing that the credit balance should not lapse upon rescinding of the notification, and the transfer should be allowed as per the transitional provisions.
In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the revenue's appeal, allowing the transfer of the credit balance accumulated under Notification 103/61 to the Modvat credit account under Rule 57H.
........
|
9911796707
