|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 401 to 420 of 984 Records
-
2009 (7) TMI 999
Issues:
1. Disallowance of Modvat credit by lower authorities.
2. Denial of refund claim for debited amount after lapse of credit balance.
3. Appellant's insistence on cash refund and legal implications.
Analysis:
1. The case involved the appellant filing Modvat credit of Rs. 80,998/- during a specific period. A show cause notice was issued seeking to disallow the credit, which was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner and rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned orders, indicating a favorable decision for the appellant regarding the disallowance of Modvat credit.
2. The appellant sought a refund of the debited amount of Rs. 80,998/- after success in the appeal before the Tribunal. The authorities denied the refund claim stating that the debit was made after the appellant opted for a compounded levy scheme, leading to the lapse of the credit balance. The Tribunal noted that the debit entry from the lapsed credit was not in accordance with the law and required reversal, despite the appellant's insistence on cash refund.
3. The Tribunal considered the appellant's request for cash refund but emphasized that the appellant had not suffered any prejudice due to the debit of Modvat credit. Referring to a previous case law, the Tribunal highlighted that cash refund is admissible only when an assessee is compelled to pay duty out of P.L.A. on denial of credit by the Revenue. In this case, it was determined that the appellant would not have been able to utilize the debited amount, which would have lapsed along with the unutilized credit balance. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, stating that the refund of the debited amount in cash was not justified, and advised the appellant to make a reverse entry in their records, albeit considering it a futile exercise.
In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed the disallowance of Modvat credit, denial of refund claim after the lapse of credit balance, and the appellant's request for cash refund, ultimately rejecting the appeal based on legal principles and previous case law interpretations.
-
2009 (7) TMI 998
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 35/2003-C.E. (N.T.)
2. Applicability of penalty under Section 11AC
3. Effect of the Larger Bench decision in the case of Machino Montell
4. Assessment of deliberate intent to evade payment of duty
Interpretation of Notification No. 35/2003-C.E. (N.T.):
The case revolved around the respondents filing a declaration regarding their stock of grey fabrics and availing credit based on Notification No. 35/2003-C.E. (N.T.). The notification specified the calculation method for credit, which the respondents did not adhere to accurately. Consequently, they availed excess credit, leading to a discrepancy in the amount claimed versus the entitled credit.
Applicability of penalty under Section 11AC:
The Assistant Commissioner refrained from imposing a penalty on the respondent for the excess credit availed, citing that the correction was made before any show cause notice was issued. This decision was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The core argument against imposing a penalty was the absence of fraudulent intent or deliberate misrepresentation by the respondent. The Tribunal concurred, emphasizing that the incorrect credit availed was due to an error in calculation, not an intentional evasion of duty.
Effect of the Larger Bench decision in the case of Machino Montell:
The Revenue contended that the Tribunal's decision in Machino Montell had been overruled by the Punjab & Haryana High Court. While acknowledging this, the Tribunal highlighted that the case at hand did not meet the criteria for invoking Section 11AC. The Tribunal emphasized that the situation did not involve fraudulent behavior or deliberate evasion of duty but rather a miscalculation in availing credit, promptly rectified by the respondent upon notification of the error.
Assessment of deliberate intent to evade payment of duty:
The Tribunal, in its analysis, emphasized the absence of fraudulent intent or deliberate evasion of duty by the respondent. It noted that the incorrect credit availed was a result of a mistaken calculation, not a deliberate attempt to underpay duty. The Tribunal highlighted that the respondent had promptly rectified the excess credit upon realization of the error, indicating transparency and cooperation with the Revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, concluding that Section 11AC penalties were unwarranted in this scenario.
This comprehensive analysis of the judgment delves into the nuances of the issues raised, the legal interpretations applied, and the rationale behind the Tribunal's decision, ensuring a detailed understanding of the case.
-
2009 (7) TMI 997
Clandestine removal - no evidence - Held that:- The fact of clandestine removal is required to be established by production of sufficient records and the same cannot be based upon the entries made in a rough note book - there is no evidence on record corroborating the clandestine activities of the assessee - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2009 (7) TMI 996
Issues: Refund claim of Education Cess, unjust enrichment, penalty under Section 11AC
Refund Claim of Education Cess:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing sugar, molasses, and special denatured spirit, filed a refund claim of Rs. 3,84,444/- for Education Cess cleared during a specific period before the levy was introduced. The Original Adjudicating Authority sanctioned the refund, but the Commissioner (Appeals) held that unjust enrichment applied, requiring recovery of the amount along with interest and penalty under Section 11AC. The appellant challenged this decision before the Tribunal.
Unjust Enrichment:
The appellant argued that there was no fraud or intent to evade duty, as the refund was rightfully claimed and approved. However, upon the Revenue's appeal on unjust enrichment grounds, the appellant voluntarily reversed the entire refund amount. The Tribunal noted that while the appellant was eligible for the refund, the burden had been passed on to customers, invoking the bar of unjust enrichment. The appeal focused on contesting the penalty under Section 11AC, not the demand confirmation.
Penalty under Section 11AC:
The Tribunal examined the refund claim process, finding that the Joint Commissioner thoroughly reviewed it before approval. The Commissioner (Appeals) had invoked Section 11AC based on unjust enrichment, despite the earlier approval by an officer. The Tribunal concluded that there was no suppression, fraud, or willful misstatement by the appellant to evade duty. The penalty was set aside, considering it a case of wrong interpretation rather than malicious intent. The appeal was disposed of in favor of the appellant.
This judgment highlights the importance of unjust enrichment in refund claims, the burden of proof on the taxpayer, and the Tribunal's scrutiny of penalty imposition under Section 11AC based on the intent to evade duty.
-
2009 (7) TMI 995
Issues involved: Appeal against disallowance of credit, recovery of interest, and penalty u/s Cenvat Credit Rules based on alleged contravention of provisions.
In the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, MUMBAI, the issue revolved around whether the appellant had claimed depreciation u/s Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the value of goods, specifically dies and moulds, as capital goods, which represented the duty amount. The appellant was issued a show cause notice for denial of credit, proposing penalty and interest, based on the allegation of availing Cenvat credit and depreciation on the impugned goods, leading to a contravention of Cenvat Credit Rules.
The Assistant Commissioner disallowed the credit, ordered interest recovery, and imposed an equivalent penalty, a decision upheld by the Appellate Authority. The appellant contended that they did not claim depreciation on the impugned goods, treating them as revenue expenditure, supported by an order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appellant presented documents reflecting this treatment in the balance sheet and reports.
During the proceedings, Shri Godbole, Sr. Manager (Excise), representing the appellant, argued that the denial of Cenvat credit was based on the CIT (Appeals) orders granting depreciation on capital goods leased, not including the impugned goods. He asserted that the impugned goods were considered revenue expenditure by the CIT (Appeals), eliminating the possibility of claiming depreciation under IT on their value, including the duty amount paid, in violation of Cenvat Credit Rules.
Upon examination of the records, the Tribunal noted that the CIT (Appeals) allowed depreciation on capital assets, distinct from the impugned goods, which were treated as revenue expenditure. Consequently, the Tribunal concurred with Shri Godbole's argument that since the impugned goods were not classified as capital goods, the question of depreciation did not arise. Therefore, the lower authorities' decision to hold that the appellant availed depreciation on the impugned goods u/s Section 32 of the Income Tax Act was deemed incorrect.
In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the impugned order, setting it aside and allowing the appeal with any consequential relief deemed necessary.
-
2009 (7) TMI 994
The appellate tribunal CESTAT, Chennai, under the citation 2009 (7) TMI 994, heard the case of Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram and Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, JJ. The appellant, represented by Shri B.V. Kumar, Advocate, applied for waiver of pre-deposit of differential duty of Customs of Rs. 2,86,80,223 along with interest, and penalty equal to duty imposed on M/s. Regency Ceramics Ltd. (RCL) and a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on M/s. Regency Glazes Ltd. (RGL). The demand confirmation arose from the denial of the benefit of concessional rate of duty on capital goods imported by RCL against an EPCG license, due to the goods being found installed in the factory premises of RGL instead of RCL, contravening the notification conditions.
The tribunal noted that RCL had fulfilled its export obligation and had initially installed the imported goods in their premises, certified by the jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner. The goods were subsequently shifted to RGL, a group company, without intimation to the relevant authorities. The tribunal considered this a procedural lapse, as the shifting was not explicitly forbidden by the notification, and the Handbook of Procedures 2002-07 allowed for such transfers with proper intimation. As RCL had fulfilled its obligations, the tribunal found the duty demand and penalty not sustainable, waiving the pre-deposit and staying recovery pending appeals. The operative part of the order was pronounced on 23-7-2009.
-
2009 (7) TMI 993
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Kolkata dismissed four appeals filed by the Revenue as the appeal memoranda were not signed or verified by any authorized officer, contrary to the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1982.
-
2009 (7) TMI 992
Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of documents leading to the conclusion of unjust enrichment.
2. Request for conversion of order from dismissal to allowing the appeals.
Analysis:
1. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals of the assessees based on the lower authority's decision that the refund claims would result in unjust enrichment. The counsel for the applicants argued that the endorsement on documents indicating payment of arrears should not lead to the conclusion of unjust enrichment. The JDR contended that the Bench's interpretation was valid, and the assessees wanted their interpretation to be accepted. The Tribunal found no mistake in its final order and rejected the applications, stating that appreciation of evidence differently does not constitute an apparent mistake.
2. The assessees sought to convert the order of dismissal into an order allowing the appeals by asserting that the bar of unjust enrichment did not apply to them. However, the Tribunal, after considering the arguments, did not find any grounds to change the original decision. The request for conversion was denied as the Tribunal was not convinced that any mistake was made in the initial order. The applications were dismissed, affirming the decision regarding unjust enrichment and the dismissal of the appeals.
-
2009 (7) TMI 991
Issues involved: Central Excise duty on unusable clinker, payment of interest on reversed Cenvat Credit.
Summary:
The case involved the appellants, engaged in Cement manufacturing, who accumulated unusable clinker stock upon ceasing operations in 2002. They sought waiver of duty on the dead stock but later paid back the credit availed on the clinker based on a CBEC circular. Subsequently, they were issued a notice for interest recovery under C.Ex. Rules. The main contention was whether the payment of interest was justified after reversing the Cenvat Credit.
On appeal, the Commissioner rejected their plea, leading to the present appeal. The appellant argued that since the credit reversal was not required, interest payment should not apply, citing relevant legal decisions supporting their stance.
The Tribunal noted that the credit reversal was not contested by the appellants, but opined that if the credit was not required to be reversed, interest payment would not be warranted. Therefore, the impugned order confirming interest against the appellant was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
-
2009 (7) TMI 990
The judgment delivered by the Settlement Commission, Customs and Central Excise in 2009 involved the settlement of a case of undervaluation related to the importation of Betel Nuts by M/s. Dinesh Tobacco Industries. The applicant and co-applicants admitted to undervaluing the imported goods, leading to a differential duty amount of Rs. 3,78,67,868, which was paid along with interest. The case was settled under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962, with the applicant requesting immunity from fines, penalties, and prosecution. The Settlement Commission granted immunity from penalties exceeding Rs. 30,00,000 to the main applicant and immunity from penalties to the co-applicants. Immunity from prosecution was granted subject to the penalty payment within 30 days. The order of settlement would be void if obtained through fraud or misrepresentation. The terms and conditions of settlement were outlined under sub-section (5) of Section 127C of the Act, with attention drawn to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 127H. All parties concerned were duly informed of the settlement terms. The judgment highlighted the prompt payment of duty and interest, while acknowledging the need to balance immunity with the severity of the evasion and the Revenue Department's concerns. The adjustment of Rs. 10 lakhs deposited by the applicant was allowed, despite opposition from the Revenue, as both entities were part of the same family concerns. The Settlement Commission carefully considered the circumstances before granting the settlement terms and immunities.
-
2009 (7) TMI 989
Issues:
1. Maintainability of the appeal before the forum against an administrative decision.
2. Interpretation of Section 129-A of Customs Act, 1962 regarding appeal rights.
3. Determining if the decision taken by the authority was quasi-judicial.
4. Entitlement of the appellant to a reasoned and speaking order.
5. Remand of the matter to the competent authority for justice.
6. Timely disposal of the matter by the competent authority.
Issue 1 - Maintainability of the appeal:
The appeal centered on the maintainability of challenging an administrative decision before the forum. The appellant contended that being aggrieved by the decision, they should not be left remediless. The Revenue relied on a Supreme Court judgment to argue that without a quasi-judicial decision, no appeal lies under Section 129-A of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the appellant cited precedents to support the notion that when an authority's decision causes prejudice, the appellant should not be left without recourse.
Issue 2 - Interpretation of Section 129-A:
The Tribunal examined the scope of its power to entertain appeals under Section 129-A of the Customs Act, 1962. While acknowledging the potential prejudice caused by the decision conveyed in an administrative letter, the Tribunal emphasized the need for a reasoned and speaking order when an authority acts in a quasi-judicial capacity. The absence of a reasoned order led the Tribunal to conclude that the letter was not an adjudication order, and thus, no appeal could be entertained under Section 129-E.
Issue 3 - Determination of quasi-judicial decision:
The Tribunal analyzed the nature of the decision taken by the competent authority, noting that while the authority appeared to have acted in a quasi-judicial capacity, no reasoned or speaking order was passed. This led to the conclusion that the letter conveying the decision was not an adjudication order but represented a quasi-judicial decision that required the appellant to be heard and a reasoned order to be passed to serve the interests of justice.
Issue 4 - Entitlement to a reasoned order:
The Tribunal clarified that the appellant was entitled to a reasoned and speaking order following a hearing of the grievance to ensure justice. Recognizing that the letter conveyed a quasi-judicial decision, the Tribunal directed the matter to be remanded back to the competent authority for the appellant to receive a fair opportunity to present their case.
Issue 5 - Remand for justice:
In light of the need for justice and fairness, the Tribunal directed the appellant to appear before the competent authority within a week to file an application for a hearing date. The competent authority was instructed to promptly fix a date for the hearing and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, considering the live consignments in the custody of customs.
Issue 6 - Timely disposal by competent authority:
The Tribunal's decision to remand the matter back to the competent authority for a reasoned order and a fair hearing was based on precedents and the principle of ensuring justice. By following the decision in a relevant case, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of allowing appeals against decisions that affect the rights of parties, even in cases of provisional assessment.
In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the principles of justice, the nature of quasi-judicial decisions, and the entitlement of appellants to reasoned orders and fair hearings, ultimately leading to the remand of the matter for proper adjudication by the competent authority.
-
2009 (7) TMI 988
Clandestine removal - Evidence - Shortages of goods - Held that: - apart from the Panchanama showing the shortages of the goods, there is otherwise, no evidence on record to show the clandestine removal of the goods. As such, physical stock taking also stands assailed by the assessee on the ground that it is impossible for the officers to carryout the same within a short span of time. No inventory stands produced by the Revenue - It is well settled that findings of the clandestine removal cannot be based upon merely shortages without any other reliable evidence on record. There being none in the present appeal, I extend the benefit of doubt to the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2009 (7) TMI 987
Issues:
Confirmation of demand against processing units, imposition of penalties based on identical facts.
Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad involved four appeals being decided together due to identical facts leading to demand confirmation against processing units and penalty imposition. The case stemmed from a visit by Central Excise Officers to a folding unit where unaccounted processed fabrics were found, leading to proceedings against processing houses. The proceedings against one processing house were dropped due to lack of independent evidence. Subsequently, proceedings were initiated against other processing houses based on recovered documents indicating fabric receipts. The appellants argued that similar proceedings against other units were dropped by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to insufficient evidence. The Tribunal noted that findings of clandestine removal were solely based on a statement without independent evidence, leading to the impugned orders being set aside, and all appeals were allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
2009 (7) TMI 986
Issues:
1. Interpretation of penalty issue in light of Supreme Court judgment
2. Tribunal's rejection of Revenue's appeal based on time bar issue
Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the interpretation of the penalty issue as directed by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of UOI v. Dharmendra Textile Processors. The Tribunal was instructed to decide the penalty issue specifically, based on the Supreme Court's ruling. The Tribunal referred to its previous Order where the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected on the grounds that the Commissioner (Appeals) findings on the time bar issue could not be disturbed. This decision was in line with the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of CCE, Chandigarh v. Bhalla Enterprises, which established that the limitation for issuing a show cause notice starts running from the date of search and seizure of documents or from the completion of the investigation. The Tribunal's findings on the time bar issue were not challenged by the Hon'ble High Court, and the matter was remanded solely for deciding the penalty issue. The Commissioner (Appeals) had ruled that the demand was barred by limitation, thus Section 11AC was not invoked, as the entire show cause notice was considered time-barred. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling stated that when Section 11AC is invoked, authorities have no discretion to levy a penalty less than the duty demand. However, if the show cause notice is time-barred, Section 11AC would not be applicable. The Tribunal found no fault in the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, as the Revenue did not challenge the issue of limitation.
2. The Tribunal, based on the above analysis, found no merits in the Revenue's appeal and subsequently rejected it. The judgment highlights the importance of adhering to the legal principles established by higher courts and the significance of the time bar issue in invoking penalty provisions. By upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) decision on the time bar issue, the Tribunal maintained consistency with the legal precedents set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, ensuring a fair and just application of the law in the matter at hand.
-
2009 (7) TMI 985
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, 2009 (7) TMI 985 - CESTAT, Ahmedabad, was presided over by Ms. Archana Wadhwa. The case involved the remanding of a matter by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat for a fresh decision on the quantum of penalty, following the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors. The Original Adjudicating Authority confirmed duty of Rs. 2,58,295 against the appellant for clandestine removal and imposed a penalty of the same amount. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the duty and penalty, which was further challenged before the Tribunal. The Primeakt Tribunal upheld the duty confirmation but reduced the penalty to Rs. 20,000 considering the circumstances. However, following the Supreme Court's judgment in M/s. Dharamendra Textile Processors, the penalty was increased to the duty amount of Rs. 2,58,295. The Tribunal also considered the Provisos to Section 11AC, allowing the assessee to pay reduced penalty if the duty and interest are paid within thirty days of the order. The penalty was ultimately enhanced to the duty amount, but the assessee was given the option to deposit the entire dues along with 25% interest of the penalty within thirty days to restrict the penalty to 25% of the duty amount. The Revenue's appeal was disposed of accordingly.
-
2009 (7) TMI 984
Issues:
1. Appeal against duty confirmation and penalty reduction.
2. Applicability of provisos to Section 11AC.
3. Interpretation of penalty provisions.
Analysis:
1. The Tribunal's initial order confirmed duty of Rs. 31,568 and reduced the penalty to Rs. 8,000. The Revenue appealed to the Gujarat High Court, which remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh decision in light of the law declared by the Supreme Court in a specific case. The High Court directed the Tribunal to consider the applicability of provisos to Section 11AC while reevaluating the case. The Tribunal, upon rehearing, upheld the penalty reduction based on the appellant's timely deposit of the penalty amount.
2. The Assistant Commissioner had imposed a penalty of Rs. 22,219, which the appellant paid within 30 days of the order. The Commissioner (Appeals) later enhanced the penalty to Rs. 9,349, which the appellant also paid within the stipulated time. The Tribunal considered the first and second provisos to Section 11AC, which state that if 25% of the penalty is paid within 30 days of the original or appellate order, the penalty amount shall be reduced by 25% of the duty amount. As the appellant had paid the full penalty within the specified period, the Tribunal upheld the penalty reduction based on the provisos.
3. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of penalty provisions under Section 11AC. By analyzing the timely payment of penalties by the appellant and the provisions of the law, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty reduction was warranted. The Tribunal disposed of the appeal in favor of the appellant, upholding the penalty reduction in alignment with the applicable legal provisions and precedents cited by the High Court and the Supreme Court.
-
2009 (7) TMI 983
Issues:
Violation of import license requirement, confiscation of imported machinery, imposition of fine and penalty, applicability of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, liability of importer and partner, redemption of machinery, Tribunal's decision in Mudra Offset case.
The case involved the import of secondhand printing machinery without an import license under the actual user condition of EXIM Policy 1997-2002. The machinery was subsequently sold to different entities. The Additional Commissioner of Customs confiscated the machines and imposed a fine of Rs. 2,50,000/- on the importer, along with penalties on the importer and a partner. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the fine and penalties but reduced the penalty on the partner. The main issue was whether the redemption option for the machinery should have been given to the purchasers instead of the importer.
The judge, after hearing both sides, found merit in the importer's argument that the redemption of the machinery should have been offered to the purchasers as per Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Tribunal's decision in the Mudra Offset case. Consequently, the fine imposed on the importer was set aside. However, the importer remained liable for penalties due to the violation of the actual user condition. The penalty on the partner was also upheld based on the findings against him by the lower authorities.
In the final decision, Appeal No. C/182/03 was partly allowed by setting aside the redemption fine, while Appeal No. C/186/03 was dismissed. The judgment highlighted the importance of correctly applying the provisions of the Customs Act and relevant legal precedents in cases involving the importation and sale of goods under specific conditions and licenses.
This judgment serves as a reminder of the legal obligations and consequences related to importation under specific conditions and the importance of adhering to the provisions of the Customs Act to avoid penalties and confiscation of goods.
-
2009 (7) TMI 982
Issues involved: Appeal against order of Commissioner (Appeals) regarding confiscation of excess brass pipes, duty confirmation, and penalty imposition.
Summary:
Confiscation of Excess Goods:
The case involved a manufacturing unit dealing with copper and brass pipes and tubes where officers found 4635 Kgs. of brass pipes in excess during a visit. A show cause notice was issued proposing confiscation of the excess goods, duty confirmation, and penalty imposition. The Deputy Commissioner confirmed duty and allowed redemption of goods on payment of a fine. The appeal was filed against this order.
Non-Disclosure of Goods Origin:
The Revenue contended that the goods were received from a job worker under section 57F(2), which was not disclosed by the Manager of the assessee during the investigation. The Manager admitted to the offense of non-accounting of excisable finished goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) was criticized for extending the benefit of doubt to the appellant.
Decision:
The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to provide evidence showing any intention to clear the goods without payment of duty. The Manager's admission did not indicate any malicious intent behind the non-accounting. Merely not entering the goods in the RG-1 record should not lead to confiscation or penalty imposition. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue.
This judgment highlights the importance of establishing intent and mala fide actions in cases of non-compliance with excise regulations before imposing penalties or confiscation of goods.
-
2009 (7) TMI 981
Issues involved: Appeal against the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the appeal filed by the Respondent regarding the refund of NCCD paid on raw material for manufacturing polyester textured yarn.
Summary:
1. The Revenue filed an appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order, which was set aside by the High Court due to lack of reasoning in the Tribunal's order.
2. The matter was listed again, and both sides were heard. The dispute revolved around the denial of refund of NCCD paid on raw material for manufacturing polyester textured yarn.
3. The appellants had manufactured and exported polyester textured yarn under bond, and the dispute was regarding the NCCD paid on raw material. The original adjudicating authority denied the refund, stating that no NCCD was leviable on the final product from a certain date.
4. The Commissioner (Appeals) ruled in favor of the respondent, citing a clarificatory circular allowing the refund of AED (GSI) based on the eligibility to take credit under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
5. The Commissioner (Appeals) referenced a previous Tribunal decision in the same assessee's case, which had allowed the refund of NCCD paid on the input. The issue had also been rejected by the Mumbai High Court, indicating finality.
6. Consequently, the present appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected, affirming the decision in favor of the respondent.
*(Pronounced in Court)*
-
2009 (7) TMI 980
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, MUMBAI, consisting of S/Shri A.K. Srivastava and Ashok Jindal, JJ., heard a stay petition filed by the applicants against an order by the Commissioner confirming a duty demand of Rs. 20,47,601/-, interest, and an equivalent penalty. The key issue in this case pertains to the classification of the Guest Room Central System with temperature control feature, specifically whether it falls under Chapter Heading 85.37 as claimed by the applicants or under 90.32 as held by the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that this is the second round of litigation, with the earlier round being remanded by the Tribunal to the Commissioner with specific directions. After considering expert opinions, the Commissioner concluded that the thermostat attached to the Guest InnLink/Maestro cannot control electricity but only the air conditioning unit, leading to the view that the system falls under Chapter Heading 90.32. The Tribunal also addressed the plea of time bar raised by the applicants' advocate, finding it unsustainable based on the Commissioner's observations. In light of the circumstances, the Tribunal directed the applicants to pre-deposit Rs. 6 lakhs towards duty, in addition to Rs. 4,00,000/- already paid, within eight weeks. Compliance was to be reported by 15-9-2009. Failure to meet these directions would result in the vacation of the stay and dismissal of the appeal without further notice.
............
|
9911796707
