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 + HC Central Excise - 2014 (11) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2014 (11) TMI 777 - HC - Central Excise


Issues:
1. Challenge to the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise regarding duty payment on Turbine Wheel Assembly.
2. Appeal against the order of CESTAT directing the appellant to deposit 50% of the amount ordered by the Commissioner.
3. Substantial questions of law raised regarding the similarity of goods, invocation of extended period, and factual considerations.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a 100% Export Oriented Unit engaged in manufacturing and exporting Turbine Wheel Assembly and Bearing Housing, faced a demand for duty payment of &8377; 1,98,16,067/- along with interest and penalty for clearing Turbine Wheel Assembly to the Domestic Tariff Area at concessional rates. The original authority confirmed this demand, leading to the appellant challenging the order before CESTAT. The substantial question of law raised was whether the goods exported and cleared in the DTA were similar, invoking provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-09.

2. The CESTAT passed an interim order directing the appellant to deposit 50% of the demanded amount. The appellant contended that the findings of CESTAT regarding the similarity of goods and the invocation of the extended period were factually incorrect. However, the High Court held that as the impugned order was interim, the questions of law raised could not be considered at that stage. The appellant's plea to challenge the deposit amount before CESTAT due to financial hardship was also dismissed, emphasizing that the issue must be raised before the appropriate forum.

3. The High Court reasoned that the findings of the Tribunal regarding the similarity of goods and the invocation of the extended period were based on factual considerations for granting an interim order. As no substantial question of law arose for consideration, the appeal was dismissed. The appellant was advised to address any financial hardship concerns regarding the deposit amount directly with CESTAT. The court refrained from expressing an opinion on the request for reduction of the deposit amount, leaving it to the appellant to pursue the remedy through the appropriate application process.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates