9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 1150 - AT - CustomsStay applications - CENVAT credit - out of turn hearing - Held that - stay order passed by the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal is an ex party order. It is seen that the issue has a recurring nature and the issue is also a contentious one. Hence, we fix the appeals for out-of-turn hearing on 17.6.2013. Status quo shall be maintained till the disposal of the appeals - Stay granted.
Issues:
Import of goods under Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004, applicability of proviso regarding CENVAT credit, interpretation of stay order by Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal, reliance on previous Tribunal decision in Prashray Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs 2009 (235) ELT 300. Analysis: The case involved the import of goods by the respondents under Notification No. 30/2004-CE dated 9.7.2004, which contains a proviso stating that the notification does not apply to goods where credit of duty on inputs or capital goods has been taken under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002. The Revenue argued that this proviso excludes imported goods from the notification due to the inapplicability of CENVAT credit. They cited a stay order by the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in Commissioner of Customs Vs. Mahalaxmi Silk Trading Co. as support. However, the counsel for the respondent referred to a previous Tribunal decision in Prashray Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs 2009 (235) ELT 300 to support their position. Upon evaluating the arguments, the Tribunal noted that the stay order from the Kolkata Bench was an ex parte order and that the issue at hand was both recurring and contentious. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to schedule an out-of-turn hearing for the appeals on 17.6.2013. Until the appeals were disposed of, the status quo was to be maintained, and the stay applications were disposed of accordingly. The decision was dictated and pronounced in open court by the Tribunal. This analysis highlights the key issues of the case, including the interpretation of the proviso in Notification No. 30/2004-CE, the relevance of CENVAT credit to imported goods, the significance of the stay order from the Kolkata Bench, and the reliance on a previous Tribunal decision. The Tribunal's decision to expedite the hearing due to the recurring and contentious nature of the issue demonstrates a proactive approach to resolving the matter efficiently while maintaining the status quo.
|
