9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (8) TMI 990 - AT - Central Excise100% EOU - exit from EOU scheme to EPCG scheme - Duty demand - demand after calculation of depreciation - Method of calculation - Whether the method for calculation of depreciation prescribed under amending Notification No. 14/2004-C.E. and Notification No. 40/2004-Cus., both dated 26-2-2004 is applicable in this case - Held that - Sections 21 and 24 of the General Clauses Act are not relevant, as far as this case is concerned. In fact, when a later statute incorporates by reference the provisions of an earlier statute, a repeal of amendment of the earlier statutes does not affect the later statute or provisions incorporated therein. This Rule is subject to the qualification enacted in Section 8, General Clauses Act, which in itself is a Rule of general application. (National Sewing Thread Co. v. James Chadwick & Bros. - 1953 (5) TMI 13 - SUPREME COURT ). Therefore, the method of calculation adopted by the Revenue is held to be incorrect - It cannot be denied that the demand was made within the stipulated period of 1 year without invoking the extended period - Decided against assessee.
Issues:
1. Calculation of depreciation under amending notifications. 2. Department's authority to demand duty post issuance of 'No Dues Certificate'. Issue 1: Calculation of Depreciation under Amending Notifications: The case involved M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. Junagarh transitioning from EOU to EPCG scheme and being required to pay Central Excise and Customs duty. The dispute arose regarding the calculation of depreciation on capital goods post-amendment of relevant notifications. The appellant argued that the depreciation rates in force before 26-2-2004 and after 6-9-2004 should apply, citing the General Clauses Act, 1897. The adjudicating authority found the revised method of depreciation applicable post-amendment and upheld the duty demand. The appellant contended that demanding duty contrary to the 'No Dues Certificate' was incorrect, relying on a Tribunal decision upheld by the Supreme Court. However, the Tribunal differentiated the facts of the present case from the cited case, emphasizing the application of the method of calculation as per the date of payment of duty. Issue 2: Department's Authority to Demand Duty Post Issuance of 'No Dues Certificate': The second issue revolved around the Department's right to demand duty after the issuance of a 'No Dues Certificate.' The appellant argued that once compliance formalities were met as per the permission granted, any demand for short payment of duty was unjustified. The Tribunal analyzed the relevant EXIM Policy and highlighted that the calculation of depreciation should align with the policy in force at the time of exit, which was the date of payment of dues. The appellant's reliance on Sections 21 and 24 of the General Clauses Act was dismissed, emphasizing that the method of calculation adopted by the Revenue was incorrect. The Tribunal upheld the Order-in-Original, rejecting the appeal and affirming the duty demand within the stipulated period without invoking an extended period. In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad, comprising Ms. Archana Wadhwa and Dr. P. Babu, JJ., ruled in favor of the Department, upholding the duty demand on M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. Junagarh. The judgment clarified the application of amended depreciation rates and the Department's authority to demand duty post issuance of a 'No Dues Certificate.' The Tribunal emphasized adherence to the EXIM Policy and rejected the appellant's arguments based on the General Clauses Act. The decision highlighted the importance of aligning duty calculations with the policy in force at the time of exit, ultimately affirming the original adjudicating authority's findings and dismissing the appeal.
|
