|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 381 to 400 of 984 Records
-
2009 (7) TMI 1019
Misdeclaration of imported goods - consignment of Crockery and Toiletries - It was alleged by the SIIB that only 20% of the goods were in conformity with the declarations made in the invoice and Bill of Entry and the remainder of the goods had not been declared in the Bill of Entry - Held that: - the goods were bought by the overseas shipper in an auction and sold to the appellants on stock lot basis. Hence, the auction price cannot be compared with the price of the impugned goods in the Indian market, as was done by the Department.
Since the appellants’ contention that the goods were bought in stock lot basis has not been considered by the Commissioner and no findings have been recorded in this regard, we deem it fit to remand the matter to the Commissioner for de novo decision - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1018
Issues:
Initiation of proceedings for duty demand on clandestine removal of Polyester Crimped Yarn, imposition of penalty by the Original Adjudicating Authority, enhancement of penalty by Commissioner (Appeals) in line with Section 11AC, appellant's deposit of penalty amount, interpretation of Proviso to Section 11AC.
Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD involved proceedings against the appellant for the confirmation of duty demand amounting to Rs. 94,516 due to alleged clandestine removal of Polyester Crimped Yarn. The Original Adjudicating Authority confirmed the duty demand but refrained from imposing any penalty since the entire duty was paid before the show cause notice was issued.
The Revenue, dissatisfied with the lack of penalty, appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) who, considering the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors, enhanced the penalty to match the confirmed duty amount under the provisions of Section 11AC. This decision was further challenged before the Tribunal.
During the proceedings, the appellant had already paid 25% of the penalty amount within 30 days of the Commissioner (Appeals) order. The appellant's representative argued that the remaining penalty should be set aside as per the Proviso to Section 11AC.
The Tribunal noted that the Original Adjudicating Authority had not initially imposed any penalty, making the question of the appellant depositing 25% of the penalty irrelevant. However, as the penalty was increased by the Commissioner (Appeals) and 25% of the increased penalty was paid within the stipulated 30 days, the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the first Proviso to Section 11AC. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the balance amount of penalty, confirming the penalty to the extent of the 25% already paid. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
The judgment was pronounced in court on 14-9-2009 by Ms. Archana Wadhwa, J.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1017
Issues: Valuation of goods for central excise duty based on Rule 7 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000.
In this case, the main issue revolves around the valuation of goods for central excise duty purposes, specifically concerning the application of Rule 7 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000. The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai, comprising Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram and Dr. C. Satapathy, JJ., heard arguments from both sides represented by Shri K.S. Venkatagiri, Advocate for the Appellant, and Shri V.V. Hariharan, JCDR for the Respondent. The Appellant argued that the impugned demand was based on the department adopting a higher price from a previous date when there was a price decrease due to a reduction in the base price of aluminium. The Appellant contended that valuation should be done according to Rule 7, which requires considering the time nearest to the removal of goods for valuation purposes. The Appellant also cited a relevant decision of the Tribunal in a similar case.
The Respondent, represented by Shri V.V. Hariharan, acknowledged that the nearest ascertainable time for valuation should be considered in the case presented by the Appellant, agreeing that the value on 9-5-05 should be taken into account instead of 27-4-05. The Respondent highlighted the absence of a calculation showing the duty liability if the nearest time was considered for valuation instead of consistently adopting higher values in cases of price reductions.
Upon reviewing the arguments and case records, the Tribunal found that the impugned goods were transferred from the factory gate to the Appellant's own depots, necessitating valuation in accordance with Rule 7 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000. The Tribunal observed that Rule 7 mandates adopting the price at which goods are sold from the depot at or about the same time for valuation. When such goods are not sold at or about the same time, the rule requires considering the time nearest to the removal of goods for valuation. In the example provided, the Tribunal concluded that the value prevailing at the depot on 9-5-05 should be considered instead of the value on 27-4-05, as the former date was closer to the date of removal. The Tribunal deemed the demand against the Appellant unsustainable as it was based on higher values rather than the value nearest to the time of removal, leading to the waiver of the pre-deposit requirement and the stay of the impugned order during the appeal process.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1016
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty on the proprietor of a company who utilized DEPB credit.
2. Imposition of penalty on a trading company.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Imposition of penalty on the proprietor of a company who utilized DEPB credit
The case involved a dispute regarding the imposition of a penalty on the proprietor of a company, M/s. Parker Industries, who utilized the Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) credit. The Revenue contended that a penalty should be imposed on the proprietor, Shri Rajesh Kumar, in addition to the penalty imposed on the company itself. However, the Respondents argued that once a penalty was imposed on the company, penalizing the proprietor further would be disproportionate and not supported by law. The Tribunal noted that the show-cause notice clearly identified Shri Rajesh Kumar as the proprietor of M/s. Parker Industries. Since a penalty had already been levied against the company, imposing an additional penalty on the proprietor was deemed unnecessary and not legally justified. The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue's contention lacked legal support, especially considering the substantial penalty already imposed against the duty demand. Therefore, the appeal by the Revenue regarding the imposition of a penalty on the proprietor was dismissed.
Issue 2: Imposition of penalty on a trading company
Regarding the imposition of a penalty on Friends Trading Co., it was observed that the order of Adjudication did not mention any penalty specifically imposed on the trading company. The Adjudicating Authority refrained from imposing a penalty on Friends Trading Co., and there was no indication of any intention to penalize the company in the order. The Respondents argued that since there was no dispute or evidence presented by the Revenue to support the imposition of a penalty on Friends Trading Co., such penalty could not be imposed retroactively. The Tribunal highlighted that the absence of any plea or justification for imposing a penalty on the trading company in the past proceedings further supported the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the imposition of a penalty on Friends Trading Co.
In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision to not impose penalties on the proprietor of M/s. Parker Industries and Friends Trading Co., emphasizing the legal principles of proportionality and the lack of supporting evidence or justification for retroactive penalties in the case.
This comprehensive analysis of the judgment covers the issues of penalty imposition on both the proprietor of a company and a trading company, providing detailed insights into the legal reasoning and conclusions reached by the Tribunal.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1015
Issues:
1. Interpretation of advance licence terms for importing raw materials.
2. Alleged violation of advance licence terms by using different raw materials.
3. Transferability of advance licences to other entities.
4. Liability of importer for breach of advance licence terms.
5. Compliance with standard input-output norms for raw materials.
6. Relevance of DGFT decision in regularization of breach of advance licence.
7. Dispute regarding use of BOPP films instead of polyester films in manufacturing cartons.
8. Application of customs notification requiring goods exported to match goods imported.
Analysis:
1. The appellant received advance licences for importing polyester films based on their application for manufacturing printed cartons. The appellant used BOPP films in the cartons instead of polyester films, leading to a dispute over the compliance with the advance licence terms.
2. Customs authorities alleged a breach of advance licence terms by using different raw materials than specified. However, the DGFT decision regularizing the breach on 9-4-03 was considered significant, as it exonerated the appellant from any violation. The transfer of licences to other entities further complicated the issue.
3. The transferability of advance licences to M/s. R.T. Packaging Ltd. and M/s. Super Cassettes Inds. Ltd. raised questions about the liability of the original importer for any breach of licence terms, especially when the goods exported did not match the goods imported as required by customs notification.
4. The argument regarding the technical differences between BOPP films and polyester films, along with the existence of standard input-output norms for printing, highlighted the importance of complying with specific requirements of advance licences for raw materials.
5. Ultimately, the DGFT decision played a crucial role in resolving the dispute, as it regularized the breach and exonerated the appellant. The court found that the allegations in the show cause notice became academic after the regularization, leading to the success of the appeals filed by the appellant.
Conclusion:
The judgment focused on the interpretation of advance licence terms, compliance with raw material requirements, transferability of licences, and the impact of the DGFT decision on regularization of breaches. The court ruled in favor of the appellant based on the exoneration provided by the DGFT decision, emphasizing the importance of adhering to specific licence terms and technical norms in international trade transactions.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1014
Issues:
1. Penalty imposition under Section 11AC
2. Personal penalties on partners, executives, and authorized signatories
3. Wrongful availment of Cenvat credit without receiving inputs
Penalty imposition under Section 11AC:
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD addressed the issue of penalty imposition under Section 11AC in the case filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner had set aside the remaining penalty as the appellants had paid duty, interest, and 25% of the penalty within thirty days. The Revenue cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors, but the Tribunal noted that the Commissioner had invoked the first proviso to Section 11AC, which states that if 25% of the penalty is paid within thirty days, the balance penalty is not to be upheld. The Tribunal found no fault in the Commissioner's decision regarding the main unit, M/s. Raj Industries.
Personal penalties on partners, executives, and authorized signatories:
The Appellate Authority also considered the imposition of penalties on the partner, executive, and authorized signatory of the firm. It was noted that Rule 13 of Cenvat Credit Rules does not provide for personal penalties, as established in the case of Scor Tour Impex. Additionally, the allegations against M/s. Raj Industries involved wrongful availment of Cenvat credit without actually receiving the inputs. Referring to the Tribunal's decision in the case of Steel Tubes, it was held that penalties cannot be imposed without dealing with the goods. Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order regarding personal penalties, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were rejected.
This judgment highlights the Tribunal's detailed analysis of penalty imposition under Section 11AC and the limitations on imposing personal penalties on partners, executives, and authorized signatories. The decision emphasizes the importance of actual dealing with goods in penalty imposition cases related to wrongful availment of Cenvat credit without receiving inputs.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1013
Issues:
- Interpretation of exemption notification No. 8/2003 for duty exemption
- Imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of CER, 2002
- Application of mens rea in penalty imposition
- Reduction of penalty by Commissioner (Appeals)
- Appeals filed by both assessee and Revenue
Interpretation of Exemption Notification:
The case involved the appellants engaged in manufacturing goods falling under Chapter Heading 48 of CETA, 1985, which initially attracted Nil rate of duty but later 8% ad valorem duty. The appellants continued to avail exemption under notification No. 8/2003 despite exceeding the Rs. 4 crores clearance value limit. The jurisdictional Central Excise Superintendent informed them they were not entitled to the exemption, leading to demands for duty payment.
Imposition of Penalty under Rule 25:
The Assistant Commissioner confirmed duty demands and imposed penalties under Rule 25 of CER, 2002, read with Section 11AC of CEA, 1944. The appellants challenged the penalties on the grounds of misinterpretation of the exemption notification without any intention to evade duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalties considering the absence of mala fide intent but upheld the duty liability and interest payments.
Application of Mens Rea in Penalty Imposition:
The Commissioner (Appeals) acknowledged no suppression by the appellants to evade duty but cited a Tribunal decision that mens rea is not essential for penalty imposition under Rule 25. Despite the absence of intent to evade duty, penalties were reduced based on the circumstances of the case.
Reduction of Penalty by Commissioner (Appeals):
The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced penalties imposed under Rule 25 from Rs. 57,945 to Rs. 15,000 and from Rs. 4,31,419 to Rs. 1 lakh, considering the absence of intention to evade duty and the payment of duty and interest before the show cause notices were issued. The appellants appealed for further reduction, while the Revenue sought an increase in penalties.
Appeals Filed by Both Assessee and Revenue:
The Tribunal upheld the duty liability and interest payments by the appellants but rejected their appeals for further reduction in penalties. The Revenue's appeals for a 100% penalty enhancement were also dismissed, concluding that the provisions of Section 11AC were not applicable due to the absence of mens rea on the part of the assessee.
In summary, all four appeals - two by the assessee and two by the Revenue - were rejected, and the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order was upheld, with the Tribunal's decision pronounced on 17-7-2009.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1012
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI issued an order in Appeal No. E/4025/08 by the Department against the Commissioner (Appeals) order No. 65/RPR/06. The case involved the appellants, manufacturers of excisable goods, who received waste and scrap from M/s. Hira Steels Limited and M/s. Bansal Brothers. The Department disallowed the credit availed by the appellants and issued show cause notices for recovery and penalty under the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the supplier's exemption status was not established and allowed the appeal of the party. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating that the recipient unit has no authority to question the supplier's assessment. The appeal by the Department was rejected, and the cross-objection was disposed of accordingly. The judgement was delivered by Shri M. Veeraiyan, J.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1011
Issues involved: Appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order, pre-deposit compliance, credit in PLA, procedural error in taking credit, interpretation of Section 11B and unjust enrichment.
The appeal relates to a case where the appellant complied with the pre-deposit order u/s 35F and subsequently, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal with consequential relief. The appellant took credit in PLA based on TR 6 challan, which was earlier made as pre-deposit. The Department advised the appellant to file a letter for refund, but the appellant took credit before that. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the suo motu credit was erroneous based on a previous CESTAT decision. The appellant argued that they understood the order as permission to take credit and that Section 11B and unjust enrichment do not apply. The appellant sought to set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and restore the original authority's order.
The appellant's advocate cited various Tribunal decisions to support their argument. The Department reiterated the Commissioner (Appeals)' findings. The Tribunal noted that the appellant was eligible for the return of the pre-deposit amount and that the Department's instructions required a simple letter for refund. Despite the appellant filing a letter, they took credit before receiving cash refund. The Tribunal found the procedural error but held that demanding duty along with interest was unwarranted in this case. While acknowledging the procedural violation, the Tribunal decided to allow the appeal and restore the original authority's order, considering the Department's obligation to implement the earlier order of the Commissioner (Appeals).
Separate Judgement: None
-
2009 (7) TMI 1010
Issues:
1. Denial of Cenvat credit on capital goods due to procedural lapses.
2. Dispute regarding the filing of declarations within the stipulated time frame.
3. Interpretation of relevant rules and notifications concerning Cenvat credit.
4. Verification of the genuine use of capital goods for intended purposes.
5. Appeal against the penalty imposed.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Denial of Cenvat credit on capital goods
The appellants had taken Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 1,78,076 for capital goods received during a specific period. However, the credit was denied by the original authority due to procedural lapses in filing declarations within the prescribed time frame. The denial of credit was upheld, and a penalty of Rs. 5,000 was imposed on the appellant.
Issue 2: Dispute over filing of declarations
The Company Secretary argued that the delay in filing declarations was due to the lack of knowledge about the procedure, despite submitting intimation before taking the credit. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the original authority noted discrepancies in the filing dates. The Tribunal examined the details of each consignment to determine the timeliness of the declarations.
Issue 3: Interpretation of rules and notifications
The Tribunal considered Notification No. 7/99-C.E. (N.T.) and Circular No. 441/7/99-CX, emphasizing that Cenvat credit should not be denied solely for non-filing of declarations. The purpose of these guidelines was to ensure that Excise authorities verify the genuine use of capital goods for their intended purpose, rather than penalizing procedural lapses.
Issue 4: Verification of genuine use of capital goods
The Tribunal highlighted the importance of verifying the genuine utilization of capital goods for their intended purpose. It noted that while some declarations were filed after the stipulated time frame, the capital goods were available for verification over an extended period, making it easier to confirm their legitimate use.
Issue 5: Appeal against the penalty
Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by granting credit for most items, except those where declarations were not filed within the required time frame. Consequently, the penalty imposed was set aside, given the allowance of Modvat credit for the majority of the items.
In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, permitting credit for most items while upholding the denial for specific goods where declarations were not timely filed. The decision emphasized the importance of genuine utilization of capital goods and the need for Excise authorities to focus on verifying intended use rather than penalizing procedural lapses.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1009
Issues: Imposition of penalty for wrongly availing duty credit on capital goods.
In this judgment by Ms. Archana Wadhwa, the appellants, engaged in manufacturing plastic household articles, availed duty credit on capital goods but later found that the machines on which the credit was claimed were not installed in their factory. The dispute centered on the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 96,124 for this error.
The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the appellants had voluntarily reversed the credit for one machine before any official visit, indicating no intent to evade duty. However, for the other machine, the penalty was upheld as the excess credit was reversed only after being pointed out during an inspection. The appellants argued that the machine in question was installed in their separate unit eligible for the credit, and the error was a clerical mistake. They contended that they did not benefit from the excess credit due to substantial unutilized credit, making the situation revenue neutral.
Upon review, it was found that the machine was indeed eligible for the credit in the appellants' second unit, and the error lay in availing it under the wrong entity. As the excess credit remained unused and was merely a record entry, the tribunal concluded that no penalty was justified. Consequently, the penalty of Rs. 96,124 was set aside, and the appeals were allowed in favor of the appellants with consequential relief.
In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issue of penalty imposition for mistakenly availing duty credit on capital goods, highlighting the importance of intent, eligibility, and actual benefit derived from the error in determining the appropriate course of action.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1008
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Captive consumption, exemption under Notification No. 67/95-C.E. - Assessee using scrap of brass and copper, manufactures biffets, untrimmed sheets and trims same - These trimmed sheets and circles used for manufacture of handicrafts and utensils
-
2009 (7) TMI 1007
The High Court of Patna dismissed the review applications stating that the judgment under review was delivered based on wrong appreciation of judgments cited and contrary to views of the Supreme Court. The court found no merit in the review applications.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1006
Whether the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), vide which the disallowance of Rs. 4,35,000 made by the Assessing Officer on account of commission paid to the managing director and the executives, was deleted? - Revenue's appeal dismissed.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1005
Issues involved: Application for waiver of pre-deposit of tax u/s 76, 77, and 78 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 due to non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Summary:
1. The judgment pertains to an application for waiver of pre-deposit of tax amounting to Rs. 3,39,469/- along with interest and penalties imposed u/s 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The demand was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner concerning royalty paid to a foreign service provider on 24-2-2006. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance with the statutory requirement of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which mandated the deposit of tax amount and penalties as directed by way of pre-deposit.
2. The applicants argued that the payment made in 2006, before the inclusion of 'intellectual property service' under the service tax net from 10-9-2004, should not be subject to tax. However, the Tribunal found this argument untenable as royalty constitutes a continuous intellectual property service even after 10-9-2004. The evidence presented, including a letter dated 14-8-2003, indicated ongoing payment schedules for intellectual property services. The plea of limitation was also rejected as the assessees were deemed to have prima facie suppressed and concealed the value of taxable services to evade tax payment.
3. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the appellants to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the tax demand within four weeks. Upon this deposit, pre-deposit of the remaining amounts would be dispensed with, and the recovery thereof stayed pending the appeal. Failure to comply with this directive would lead to the vacation of stay and dismissal of the appeal without prior notice.
4. The appellants were instructed to report compliance by 7-9-2009. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court by Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1004
Issues:
1. Request for adjournment based on High Court orders.
2. Determination of production capacity under Compounded Levy Scheme.
3. Alleged use of higher capacity crucibles and subsequent duty demand.
4. Applicability of Section 38A post omission of Section 3A.
5. Role and penalty imposition on the company's Director.
Issue 1: Request for Adjournment
The appellants sought an adjournment based on a Madras High Court order staying proceedings under Section 3A and Rule 96ZP. However, the DR opposed, citing a Punjab and Haryana High Court decision holding that the omission of Section 3A does not absolve the assessee's liability. Despite multiple adjournments earlier, the Tribunal declined further adjournment due to the finality of the jurisdictional High Court's decision.
Issue 2: Production Capacity Determination
The appellants, a non-alloy steel ingots manufacturer, under-declared their crucible capacities under the Compounded Levy Scheme. The Commissioner found four crucibles of higher capacities installed before the scheme's commencement, leading to an increased annual production capacity determination and a subsequent demand for differential duty, interest, and penalties.
Issue 3: Alleged Use of Higher Capacity Crucibles
The appellants claimed the higher capacity crucibles were kept as standbys and used sparingly. However, evidence, including log sheets and employee statements, indicated regular use of higher capacity crucibles. The Tribunal found the Commissioner's decision to enhance the annual capacity and impose the duty demand justified based on overwhelming evidence.
Issue 4: Applicability of Section 38A
The Tribunal referred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court decision and a Tribunal's Larger Bench ruling, emphasizing Section 38A's applicability post the omission of Section 3A. Section 38A ensures that liabilities incurred under omitted sections remain valid, supporting the duty demand in this case.
Issue 5: Role and Penalty Imposition on Director
The Commissioner's detailed findings supported the Director's intentional suppression of crucial information regarding higher capacity crucibles. As the Director was responsible for the company's affairs and misled the authorities, the Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed on him.
In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, rejecting the appellants' appeals based on the findings related to production capacity determination, use of higher capacity crucibles, and the Director's role in the non-disclosure of crucial information. The legal principles of liability post-omission of sections were crucial in justifying the duty demand and penalties imposed.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1003
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai allowed the rectification of mistake application in a case involving unjust enrichment, citing the CPCL decision where it was held that the bar of unjust enrichment does not apply when a specific Notification is involved. The applications were allowed accordingly.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1002
Issues involved:
The dispute in the present appeal relates to whether the appellants, engaged in the manufacture of plastic bags, are entitled to the credit of education cess paid on the inputs while receiving the same from a 100% E.O.U. The Revenue contends that as per Rule 3(7)(a), they are entitled to credit of duty paid on the inputs excluding education cess, leading to demands being confirmed against them.
Details of the Judgment:
Issue 1 - Applicability of Education Cess Credit:
The appellant argues that the formula for availing credit is only for basic custom duty and counter vailing duty, not including education cess. They assert that since education cess was introduced after the rules were in place, the formula does not consider it. Citing a Tribunal decision in a similar case, the appellant claims entitlement to credit on education cess for supplies made by 100% EOU.
Issue 2 - Judicial Hierarchy and Prima Facie Case:
The Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) have differing views on the applicability of a Tribunal judgment allowing credit on education cess. The Assistant Commissioner's stance is criticized for not following the principle of judicial hierarchy, as higher appellate forum decisions should be adhered to. The Tribunal finds that the appellants have established a good prima facie case, leading to the unconditional allowance of stay petitions and fixing the appeals for final disposal.
In conclusion, the Tribunal acknowledges the appellant's argument regarding the non-inclusion of education cess in the credit formula and the importance of upholding judicial hierarchy in decision-making. The stay petitions are granted, and the appeals are scheduled for final disposal on a specified date.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1001
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Kolkata dismissed the Revenue's Appeals against the impugned Orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to the Memorandum of Appeals being filed without proper signing or verification. All Appeals were taken up together for disposal. The Appeals were dismissed as per the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1000
Penalty - Rule 25 - the appellant defaulted in payment of duty on fortnightly basis in terms of Rule 8 of CER, 2002, though the clearances were affected under statutory invoices and returns were duly filed by them - Rule 8(3A) - Held that: - By delaying payment of duty, an assessee is penalised to the extent of interest required to be paid by him on such delayed payments. The Provisions of Rule 8(3A) relied upon by the SDR are not invocable inasmuch as the same relate to the assessee’s liability to pay duty on each consignment at the time of removal without utilising the credit and it is in the event of failure of the above legal obligation that the goods have to be deemed as having been cleared without payment of duty - In the instant case there is no order passed by any authority requiring the assessee to pay duty on consignment basis. As such I find that the above rule may not be strictly applicable to the facts of the present case.
Such delayed payments would not attract the provisions of Rule 25 and the same would be covered by Rule 27 which provide for maximum penalty of ₹ 5000/- - penalties reduced to ₹ 5,000/- each - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.
............
|
9911796707
