Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2005 (6) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2005 (6) TMI 330 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
1. Rejection of application for Compounded Levy scheme under Central Excise Rules.
2. Duty demands made on ad valorem basis without appealable order.
3. Lack of hearing and speaking order by the Commissioner.

Analysis:
1. The appellants, engaged in processing MMF, applied for the Compounded Levy scheme under Central Excise Rules but faced rejection. The Tribunal found that the mere registration without effective installation of plant and machinery did not qualify the appellants as an Independent Textile Processor as per the notification. The Commissioner's rejection without a hearing or issuing an appealable order was deemed inappropriate, leading to frustration of the appellant's right to appeal. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of a post-decision hearing by the Commissioner before imposing duties based on a speaking order to provide reasons for the decision.

2. Duty demands were imposed on ad valorem basis without the issuance of an appealable order by the Commissioner. The Tribunal noted that the lack of a speaking order dismissing the claim and the absence of a proper hearing had hindered the appellant's ability to appeal effectively. The Commissioner was directed to hear the appellant, issue a speaking order with reasons, and allow the appellants to pursue the appeal further. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of due process and the right to appeal in matters of fiscal liabilities.

3. The appeal against the Commissioner's decision to reject the request for the Compounded Levy scheme was found to be premature as it lacked a proper hearing and speaking order. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to hear the appellant, issue a speaking order, and then allow the appellants to file a copy of the order for further appeal. Emphasizing the need for a fair and transparent process, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal with instructions for the Commissioner to rectify the procedural deficiencies before the appellant could proceed with the appeal process.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates