9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to order dated 6-2-2004 by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal; Exemption under Central Excise Notification No. 108 of 1995; Demand for duty amounting to Rs. 97,85,964; Pre-deposit orders by Tribunal; Duplication of demand; World Bank loan cancellation impact on exemption claim. Analysis: The case involves a challenge to the order dated 6-2-2004 by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal concerning exemption under Central Excise Notification No. 108 of 1995. The petitioner, a company, was issued a letter of intent by the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) for a power project financed by the World Bank. The Government of India exempted supplies to World Bank projects. However, due to the World Bank canceling the loan, duty recovery proceedings of Rs. 97,85,964 were initiated through multiple show cause notices. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) upheld the duty demand in some cases. The Tribunal directed pre-deposits varying amounts for different show cause notices, citing duplication concerns. The petitioner argued that since the goods in question were covered by a show cause notice from the Anti-evasion branch, there was no justification for separate pre-deposits. The Tribunal's order on the remaining show cause notices was challenged on this basis. The respondent contended that the Tribunal rightly required separate pre-deposits due to different grounds for demands. The Tribunal's decision was supported by the Assistant Commissioner's affidavit-in-reply. Upon hearing both sides, the Court found that the goods covered by the Anti-evasion branch's notice were the same as those in the show cause notices, where pre-deposits were already ordered. The Court criticized the Tribunal for not recognizing the duplication of demands and reiterated that the supplies were the same, warranting consistent treatment. The Department's argument about the World Bank loan cancellation impact was noted, but the petitioner's reliance on MSEB certificates for exemption was highlighted. The Court set aside the Tribunal's order, allowing the stay application and waiving the duty and penalty during the appeal's pendency. It directed the Tribunal to expedite the related appeals for a swift resolution by a specified date. The petitioner agreed to cooperate for the appeals' prompt disposal, leading to a partial allowance of the petition.
|
