9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 46/71 and Notification No. 72/76 regarding duty exemption on corrugated boards made from Kraft Paper. 2. Recovery of short-levy by the department due to alleged non-payment of duty at the specified rate. 3. Validity of the show cause notice and orders passed by the authorities. 4. Applicability of judicial function in determining the duty amount recoverable. Analysis: 1. The case involved the interpretation of Notification No. 46/71 and Notification No. 72/76 concerning the duty exemption on corrugated boards manufactured from Kraft Paper. The dispute arose as the appellants claimed full exemption despite not paying duty at the specified rate of 37.5% ad valorem on the Kraft Paper used in manufacturing. 2. The department sought to recover short-levy from the appellants for the period in question, alleging that the Kraft Paper used did not discharge duty at the required rate. A show cause notice was issued, and the Assistant Collector confirmed the duty recovery at 5% ad valorem, leading to an appeal by the appellants. 3. The appellate authorities, including the Appellate Collector, upheld the duty recovery decision, emphasizing the necessity of paying duty at the prescribed rate for availing full exemption. The Appellate Collector limited the demand to a specific period as per Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 4. The appellants challenged the orders, arguing that the determination of duty amount was not explicitly mentioned in the show cause notice, thus delegating judicial function to the subordinate authority. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the duty amount was ascertainable based on the impugned order, and it did not amount to an impermissible delegation of powers. 5. On the merits, the Tribunal referred to past decisions and held that the appellants were not eligible for full duty concession under Notification No. 14/78-CE as they did not pay duty on the Kraft Paper at the required rate of 37.5% ad valorem. Citing precedent, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the duty recovery decision, emphasizing the importance of paying duty at the specified rate for availing exemptions under the relevant notifications. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the orders of the appellate authorities.
|
