9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (3) TMI 100 - AT - Central ExciseAs regards DG sets and pumps, the show-cause notice does not contain a proposal to demand duty on these items showing the description, classification, value and rate of duty - demand without appropriate proposal in the show-cause notice is not sustainable - appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected as devoid of merits
Issues:
1. Treatment of goods as Furnace Oil sludge. 2. Demand of duty on used capital goods. 3. Lack of proposal in show-cause notice for demanding duty on damaged goods. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal vacating the demand made by the original authority regarding goods treated as Furnace Oil sludge. The Commissioner (A) found that the processed inputs were used Furnace Oil and not Furnace Oil mixed with water. The first appellate authority held that used machinery, including Furnace Oil, when cleared, were not required to discharge duty or credit reversed. The Commissioner (A) concluded that the goods cleared were Furnace Oil as such, not subject to additional duty. 2. Concerning the demand of duty on used capital goods, namely damaged DG sets and pumps, it was noted that the show-cause notice lacked a proposal specifying the description, classification, value, and rate of duty for these items. The original authority treated the damaged goods as DG sets and pumps without a proper proposal in the notice. The Commissioner (A) found this demand unsustainable due to the absence of appropriate details in the show-cause notice, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal. 3. The Tribunal highlighted that neither the appeal nor the oral submissions by the learned SDR could establish that the goods described as Furnace Oil mixed with water were assessable to duty as Furnace Oil. The lack of clarity regarding the nature of the goods led to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed as devoid of merits due to the failure to substantiate the demand for duty on the goods in question.
|
