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 - 2007 (2) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2007 (2) TMI 454 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
1. Confirmation of demands due to non-production of valid Annexure-I required under Notification No. 28/2002.
2. Whether belated production of Annexure-I can be a ground to confirm demands.

Issue 1: Confirmation of demands due to non-production of valid Annexure-I required under Notification No. 28/2002:
The appeals arose from Orders-in-Original confirming demands partially for not producing Annexure-I as mandated by Notification No. 28/2002. The appellants cleared motor spirit at a concessional duty rate under this notification. While Annexure-I was produced for a certain period, demands were upheld for a short period due to non-production of the valid Annexure-I. The appellants argued that the motor spirit was used for blending with ethanol for petroleum production. Although the motor spirit supplied was used for blending, the valid Annexure-I was belatedly produced. The Tribunal noted that the requirement of Annexure-I was procedural, and belated production should not be a reason to confirm demands.

Issue 2: Whether belated production of Annexure-I can be a ground to confirm demands:
The appellants relied on precedents such as CCE, Bombay-II v. Roshan Tin Printers and Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi, where demands were not confirmed for procedural violations. The revenue did not dispute the usage of motor spirit for blending purposes. The Tribunal observed that although Annexure-I was produced late, it was a procedural violation and should be condonable. The Commissioner should have accepted the belated production of Annexure-I. Consequently, the impugned orders were found to lack merit, and the appeals were allowed with any necessary relief.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of procedural compliance, the acceptance of belated documents in certain circumstances, and the application of precedents to determine the confirmation of demands in cases involving the non-production of required documentation under specific notifications.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates