9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 892 - HC - Service TaxPermission for withdrawal of appeal - liability of excise duty - job-work - N/N. 214/86-CE(NT) dated 25.03.1986 - HELD THAT - In view of instructions dated 22.08.2019 (A-1) issued by Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs in exercise of power conferred by Section 35(R) of the Central Excise Act made applicable to the Service Tax vide Section 83 of the Finance Act, whereby the monetary limit for filing appeal before the Hon'ble High Courts has been revised to ₹ 1 Crore and these instructions will apply to the pending cases as well as duty involved in this appeal is ₹ 34 lacs, Appeal dismissed as withdrawn. The instant appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
Issues:
Delay in refiling the appeal, liability to pay duty on job workers, interpretation of Central Excise Rules, benefit under Notification No. 214/86-CE(NT), sustainability of the final order. Delay in Refiling the Appeal: The judgment addresses a delay of 352 days in refiling the appeal, prompting an application for condonation of delay. The appellant, a revenue entity under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, challenged a CESTAT order granting duty exemption on dyeing activity of grey yarn to the respondent. The delay was acknowledged, leading to the application for condonation. Liability to Pay Duty on Job Workers: The appeal raised substantial questions of law regarding the liability to pay duty on job workers. The appellant contested CESTAT's decision to shift duty payment responsibility to job workers instead of the party, citing Rule 12 B of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The interpretation of Rule 12 B and the job worker's exercise of options under the rule were central to the legal dispute. Interpretation of Central Excise Rules: The judgment delved into the interpretation of Central Excise Rules, specifically Rule 12 B, to determine the correct party liable for duty payment in the context of textile manufacturing through job work. The legal arguments revolved around the provisions of Rule 12 B and whether the CESTAT's decision aligned with the rule's stipulations. Benefit under Notification No. 214/86-CE(NT): Another issue raised was the justification of CESTAT granting benefits to the party based on Notification No. 214/86-CE(NT) dated 25.03.1986, which was not initially contested. The appellant questioned the validity of this benefit allocation and its relevance to the case at hand. Sustainability of the Final Order: The final issue examined the sustainability of the impugned final order in the eyes of the law. Despite the appellant's prayer for appeal withdrawal due to revised monetary limits for filing appeals, the judgment dismissed the appeal as withdrawn while keeping the substantial legal questions open for future consideration. In conclusion, the judgment dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on revised monetary limits for filing appeals, with the substantial legal questions raised remaining unresolved. The issues of delay in refiling the appeal, liability to pay duty on job workers, interpretation of Central Excise Rules, benefit under Notification No. 214/86-CE(NT), and the sustainability of the final order were thoroughly analyzed in the context of the appellant's challenge against the CESTAT order.
|
