|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 291 Records
-
1987 (8) TMI 345
Issues:
- Interpretation of exemption Notification No. 70/81-Customs for duty-free import of articles for a Research and Development Unit/Lab.
Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi dealt with 596 appeals concerning the entitlement of an industrial undertaking in the public sector, engaged in manufacturing telecommunication equipment, to import certain articles duty-free under exemption Notification No. 70/81-Customs. The central issue revolved around whether the articles were imported by the Research and Development (R&D) Unit or by the industrial undertaking itself. The Tribunal had previously ruled on similar appeals by the same appellants, concluding that while the R&D Unit qualified as a Research Institution, the imports were made by the industrial undertaking, not the R&D Unit, thus failing to meet the exemption conditions.
In the current batch of appeals, the department contended that the R&D Unit did not qualify as a Research Institution. However, the Tribunal upheld its earlier decision that the R&D Unit was indeed a Research Institution. The crux of the debate focused on whether the goods were imported by the R&D Unit or the industrial undertaking. The appellants argued that the industrial undertaking acted as a conduit for the R&D Unit's imports due to the R&D Unit not being a separate legal entity. They highlighted that the goods were solely used for research purposes, fulfilling the intent of the exemption notification.
The department insisted on a strict interpretation based on statutory definitions, emphasizing that the imports were by the industrial undertaking, a commercial entity, not the R&D Unit. The Tribunal reiterated its earlier stance that the imports were made by the industrial undertaking, not the R&D Unit, based on the statutory requirements of the Customs Act, 1962. It emphasized that the import documents were in the name of the industrial undertaking, indicating them as the importer, in line with statutory provisions.
The Tribunal rejected the appellants' argument that allowing the industrial undertaking to import on behalf of the R&D Unit was necessary to avoid rendering the exemption notification meaningless. It emphasized that the notification must be strictly interpreted, and since the goods were not imported by the Research Institution (R&D Unit), the duty-free benefit could not be granted. The Tribunal dismissed all 596 appeals, maintaining its position that the imports were by the industrial undertaking, not the R&D Unit, thus not meeting the exemption criteria.
In conclusion, the judgment underscored the importance of strict interpretation of exemption notifications and statutory provisions in determining the entitlement to duty-free imports, emphasizing that the goods must be imported by the specified Research Institution to qualify for the exemption.
-
1987 (8) TMI 344
The case involved M/s. Kinjal Electricals (P) Ltd. declaring lamp holders under Item No. 68, but the department claimed they should be under Item No. 61 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. A demand for duty was issued, but it was found to be barred by limitation as a proper show cause notice was not given within the required time frame. The appeal by the Collector of Central Excise was dismissed.
-
1987 (8) TMI 343
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 268/67-C.E. and entitlement to exemption.
2. Whether payment of additional duty of Customs under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act qualifies for exemption under the notification.
Analysis:
1. The case involved the classification of parts of footwear by M/s. Polyurethene Footwears (P) Ltd. falling under Item 36(2) CET and their claim for exemption under Notification No. 268/67-C.E., dated 1-12-1967 as amended. The dispute arose when the Assistant Collector rejected their claim, which was later overturned by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). The issue was whether the words in the notification referring to duty under Item 15-A CET covered only Central Excise Duty or also included payment of additional duty of Customs under Section 3 of the C.T.A.
2. The notification exempted footwear and parts thereof made from artificial or synthetic resins or plastic materials from excise duty, subject to specific conditions. The contention was whether the payment of additional duty of Customs under Item 15-A CET could qualify for the exemption. The department argued that only after the issuance of Notification No. 70/85-C.E., dated 17-3-1985, did such payment entitle for exemption. However, the respondents argued that the benefit was available regardless of whether the duty under Item 15-A CET was paid as excise duty or as additional duty of Customs.
3. The Tribunal analyzed the wording of the notifications and held that the reference to duty in notifications issued under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules must be interpreted as Central Excise Duty. Referring to a previous decision in the case of United Metal Industries, the Tribunal upheld that the payment of additional duty of customs under Item 15-A CET did not entitle the appellants to claim exemption under Notification 268 of 1967. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order and dismissed the appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Pune.
This detailed analysis clarifies the interpretation of the notifications and the specific conditions for claiming exemption under Central Excise Rules, highlighting the significance of payment types in determining eligibility for duty exemption.
-
1987 (8) TMI 340
Issues:
- Appeal against order of Collector (Appeals) Central Excise, Calcutta regarding availing of facility under Rule 56A for vanadium pentaoxide manufacturing.
Detailed Analysis:
The appellants in this case manufactured vanadium pentaoxide using vanadium sludge as a raw material falling under T.I. 68 CET. They requested permission for availing facility under Rule 56A from the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Gaya, but faced delays and refusals. The appellants' refund claim for excess duty paid on vanadium sludge was rejected as time-barred by the Assistant Collector. The Collector (Appeals) also denied their claim citing non-compliance with Notification 178/77 and 201/79 formalities. However, the Collector acknowledged the appellants' communication with authorities and their repeated requests for permission under Rule 56A.
The Tribunal observed that the appellants diligently presented all manufacturing details to the Central Excise authorities and consistently sought permission for Rule 56A benefits. Despite being eligible for the facility as per the Collector (Appeals), the appellants couldn't avail the credit due to the pending permission. They maintained necessary documentation like the D-3 Form and RG 23 Account but refrained from utilizing the credit in RG 23 Register awaiting the required permission. The Tribunal emphasized that any duty payment made by the appellants shouldn't be considered final due to their ongoing plea for Rule 56A permission. Citing the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision in Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Union of India, the Tribunal concluded that as long as the permission for Rule 56A facility was pending, the assessment couldn't be deemed final.
Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Collector (Appeals) order and directed the Assistant Collector to reevaluate the case considering the appellants' continuous pursuit of Rule 56A benefits. The Tribunal instructed the Assistant Collector to grant the appellants Rule 56A benefits if there is substantial compliance with Rule 56A conditions and to issue necessary orders accordingly.
-
1987 (8) TMI 337
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi ruled in favor of the appellants regarding the correct classification of glass mirrors imported by them under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Tribunal held that the glass mirrors should be classified under Item No. 68 CET based on a Supreme Court decision. The appeals were allowed, and the appellants were granted consequential relief. The Tribunal also directed the refund of erroneously collected supplementary appeal fees. (Case citation: 1987 (8) TMI 337 - CEGAT, New Delhi)
-
1987 (8) TMI 334
Issues: Classification of Lean Gas under Central Excise Tariff, Excisability of Lean Gas, Liability of Central Excise Duty on Lean Gas
Classification of Lean Gas under Central Excise Tariff:
The judgment revolves around the classification of Lean Gas under the Central Excise Tariff. The Assistant Collector classified Lean Gas under T.1. 11AA(2) and demanded duty from the appellant. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) upheld the classification, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal. The appellant argued that Lean Gas should be classified under the residuary Tariff Item 68, contending that it is merely a residue left after extracting LPG from natural gas and does not undergo manufacturing. The respondent, however, asserted that Lean Gas is distinct from natural gas, as evidenced by specific agreements and differences in composition. The Tribunal analyzed the arguments and concluded that Lean Gas is different in name, character, and use from natural gas, thus classifying it under Tariff Item 68.
Excisability of Lean Gas:
The core issue addressed in the judgment is the excisability of Lean Gas. The appellant contended that Lean Gas should not attract central excise duty as it is a residue obtained without any manufacturing process. They argued that Lean Gas is essentially natural gas from which LPG has been extracted, maintaining that it does not fulfill the criteria for excisability under the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. Conversely, the respondent argued that Lean Gas results from a distinct process of extracting LPG from natural gas, making it a product subject to excise duty. The Tribunal examined the nature and composition of Lean Gas, ultimately determining that it undergoes a manufacturing process and is excisable under the Act.
Liability of Central Excise Duty on Lean Gas:
The judgment also addresses the liability of central excise duty on Lean Gas. After establishing that Lean Gas is classifiable under Tariff Item 68, the Tribunal held that the appellant would be eligible for any exemption notifications applicable under this classification. Consequently, the previous classification under TI 11A was set aside, and Lean Gas was classified under TI 68, granting the appellant the benefit of relevant exemption notifications. The appeals were partly allowed based on this classification and liability determination.
This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of classification, excisability, and duty liability concerning Lean Gas under the Central Excise Tariff, providing a detailed overview of the arguments presented and the Tribunal's findings on each issue.
-
1987 (8) TMI 333
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi ruled in favor of the appellants regarding the assessment of goods under T.I. 85.01 CTA. The goods were deemed assessable under 85.18/27(1) instead of 85.08 CTA. The tribunal allowed the appeal with consequential relief, disregarding the refund claim related to c.v. duty. (Citation: 1987 (8) TMI 333 - CEGAT, New Delhi)
-
1987 (8) TMI 332
The appeal was filed by M/s. Hindustan Cables Ltd. against an order dated 2-2-1983. The Collector cannot demand duty from M/s. Hindustan Cables as they were not charged or issued any notices in the proceedings. The Central Excise Department cannot recover any duty from M/s. Hindustan Cables under the impugned order.
-
1987 (8) TMI 331
Issues: Compliance with principles of natural justice regarding inspection of documents and waiver of personal hearing.
In this case, the appellants were granted 43 days for inspection of documents by the Revenue. However, due to the voluminous nature of the records, they were unable to complete the inspection within the given time frame. The appellants argued that they did not waive their right to a personal hearing, even though they could not file a reply to the show cause notice due to incomplete inspection. The Tribunal acknowledged that the appellants had not completed the necessary inspection and had not waived their right to a personal hearing, highlighting a lack of compliance with principles of natural justice. As a result, the Tribunal ordered a remand of the matter to the adjudicating authority for further consideration.
The appellants proposed to pay for photostat copies of documents they required, stating that they needed additional time to file a reply after receiving these copies. The Tribunal directed the Collector of Central Excise to facilitate the provision of photostat copies to the appellants within a specified time frame. The appellants were granted two months to file a reply to the show cause notice after receiving the documents. The Collector of Central Excise was also instructed to schedule a hearing and pass orders in accordance with the law after the reply was filed. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of cooperation from the appellants and warned that failure to adhere to the timeline could result in fresh orders being passed by the Collector of Central Excise.
Furthermore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case for disposal in accordance with the law and the directions provided. The Bank Guarantee provided by the appellants was to be discharged, and the cash deposited with Revenue was to remain until adjudication orders were passed. The appeal was allowed by remand, and no specific orders were made regarding the cross objection filed.
-
1987 (8) TMI 330
The appellants claimed benefit of Notification No. 179/80, but their claim was rejected for not producing required certificates. They argued that Cast Chrome Moly Steel should be assessed under Tariff Item 84.61(2) CTA for refund. The Department agreed. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for reassessment of item No. 1 under T.I. 84.61(2) CTA, granting consequential relief. The appeal was partially allowed.
-
1987 (8) TMI 329
Issues:
1. Assessment of machinery accessories and spares under Customs Act.
2. Interpretation of Notification No. 40/78-Cus.
3. Classification of items under Heading 84.45/48 CTA.
4. Extension of benefit of exemption notification to specific items.
5. Dispute regarding separate values for spares covered under item (iv).
Analysis:
1. The appeals arose from a common order of the Appellate Collector of Customs, Calcutta, involving the assessment of machinery accessories and spares imported by M/s. Hathwa Metals & Tubes. The Customs extended the benefit of Notification for the main machinery but not for all items. The Assistant Collector ordered assessment of spares at the highest rate due to lack of separate values.
2. The Appellate Collector extended the benefit of the notification to certain items and ordered assessment on merits for spares with individual values. Hathwa appealed against the refusal to extend the benefit to one item, which was later condoned due to a delay in filing. The Revenue disputed the Appellate Collector's order, leading to a show cause notice by the Government.
3. The Government's notice argued that certain items should be classified under Heading 84.45/48 CTA without the benefit of the exemption notification. It highlighted the nature of the Mandrel Cooling Device as an accessory and the separate values provided for certain items. The Revenue emphasized strict interpretation of the notification and the non-essential nature of certain accessories.
4. Arguments were presented by both sides regarding the classification and essentiality of the accessories and spares. The Counsel for Hathwa contended that certain items were integral parts of the machinery, while the Revenue emphasized separate values and non-compulsory nature of certain components.
5. The Tribunal analyzed each item individually. It upheld the benefit of the notification for the Mandrel Cooling Device, considering it an accessory to the main machine based on the invoice details. However, the Additional Set of Tooling was not considered part of the machine, leading to the rejection of the benefit extension. The spares were assessed separately based on their nature, rejecting the claim that they should be considered part of the machine for the notification benefit.
In conclusion, the Revenue's appeal was partly allowed concerning the Additional Set of Tooling, while Hathwa's appeal was rejected. The judgment clarified the assessment and classification of machinery accessories and spares under the Customs Act, emphasizing the importance of separate values and the essentiality of components for the concessional benefits.
-
1987 (8) TMI 328
Issues:
1. Interpretation of whether the imported goods qualify for the benefit of Notification No. 40/78-Customs as a "Rotary Milling Machine for Crank Shaft."
2. Discrepancy in descriptions between the imported machine and the requirements under the notification.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The main issue in this appeal was to determine if the goods imported by the appellants, labeled as "Automatic Crank Shaft Milling Machine," could be considered a "Rotary Milling Machine" for "Crank Shaft" to be eligible for the benefits under Notification No. 40/78-Customs. The Assistant Collector and the Collector of Customs (Appeals) had differing opinions based on the features and descriptions of the machines involved.
2. The Assistant Collector rejected the appellants' claim, citing that the imported machine lacked certain provisions found in a typical "Rotary Milling Machine" as per an extract from the 'Engineering Encyclopaedia.' On the other hand, the Collector of Customs (Appeals) noted distinctions between a Crank Shaft Milling Machine and a Crank Shaft Rotary Milling Machine based on the manufacturer's catalogue and the operations performed by each type of machine.
3. The appellants argued that the extract from the Engineering Encyclopaedia did not specifically refer to a Rotary Milling Machine for Crank Shaft and highlighted that their machine involved rotary motion in both the Milling Cutter and the workpiece. They also presented evidence from the Directorate General of Technical Development (DGTD) confirming the imported machine as a "Rotary Milling Machine for Crank Shaft."
4. The lower authorities, however, disregarded the DGTD confirmation, stating it was only relevant for import policy and not customs classification. The Senior Departmental Representative (SDR) pointed out discrepancies in the descriptions provided in the invoice and the Bill of Entry, emphasizing the need for a strict interpretation of the notification's requirements.
5. The Tribunal examined the arguments from both sides and acknowledged the lack of a clear definition of what constitutes a "Rotary Milling Machine" under the notification. They considered the practical aspects of the machine's operations, where both the Milling Cutter and the workpiece exhibited rotary movements, similar to the concept discussed in the Engineering Encyclopaedia.
6. Ultimately, the Tribunal accepted the appellants' submissions, noting the absence of statutory or official guidance on defining a Rotary Machine. They relied on the practical demonstration of rotary movements in the imported machine and the opinion of the DGTD to conclude that the machine qualified as a Rotary Machine under the notification. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and consequential relief was granted to the appellants.
-
1987 (8) TMI 327
Issues:
Assessment of studs and eye bolts under Item 52 of Central Excise Tariff; Misdeclaration of goods under Tariff Item 68; Demand of duty and penalty imposition.
Assessment of Studs and Eye Bolts under Item 52:
The dispute revolved around whether studs and eye bolts should be considered fasteners assessable under Item 52 of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellant argued that studs, being plain rods with threads at both ends, and eye bolts, used in various applications like gland valves and brake assemblies, were not fasteners. However, the department contended that both items fell under the definition of fasteners. The Tribunal analyzed the nature and function of studs, emphasizing that even without accompanying nuts, studs were still fasteners as they bind and fasten two pieces together. The absence of nuts did not negate the fastening capability of studs. The Tribunal also highlighted that the tariff item included "screw stud" and referred to "bolts and nuts," indicating that studs were indeed fasteners. Similarly, eye bolts were deemed to fall under Item 52 due to their role in binding and fastening components in various applications, such as gland valves and brake systems.
Misdeclaration of Goods and Demand of Duty:
The Additional Collector found that the studs and eye bolts were misdeclared under Tariff Item 68 without the necessary Central Excise license, leading to clearance without duty payment after reaching the exemption limit. However, there was inconsistency in the Collector's order regarding the misdeclaration of studs and the demand for duty. While the Collector acknowledged misdeclaration for eye bolts, the demand for duty was restricted to a specific period for studs, raising questions about the application of extended time limits under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules. The Tribunal noted the Collector's contradictory statements and questioned the rationale behind restricting the duty demand for eye bolts despite finding suppression and clandestine clearance. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the duty payment but remitted the penalty due to uncertainty surrounding the suppression and clearance issues.
In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed the assessment of studs and eye bolts under Item 52 of the Central Excise Tariff, dismissing the appeal against the Additional Collector's order. However, it raised concerns about the Collector's inconsistent findings regarding misdeclaration and duty demands, highlighting the need for clarity and consistency in such adjudications.
-
1987 (8) TMI 326
The appellate tribunal upheld the classification of acrylic plastic sheet crushed scrap under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff, dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue. The decision was based on a previous ruling in a similar case. (Case: Collector of Customs, Bombay v. R.K. Industries and Others)
-
1987 (8) TMI 325
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved the Customs classification of Water Pump Bearings. It was held that the bearings should be classified under Heading 84.62(1) for basic duty. The appellants were granted a refund based on this classification. The issue of Countervailing Duty was not pressed before the Tribunal as it was still open before the Assistant Collector.
-
1987 (8) TMI 324
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi allowed the appeal by the appellants regarding the assessment of additional customs duty on imported Stainless Steel Wire Coils for manufacture of Arc Welding Electrode. The Tribunal held that the duty should be assessed with reference to Central Excise Item No. 26AA(ia) specific for steel wire, not Item 50 of the Central Excise Tariff. The impugned orders were set aside, and a refund was granted to the appellants. (Citation: 1987 (8) TMI 324 - CEGAT, New Delhi)
-
1987 (8) TMI 323
Issues: Mis-declaration of imported goods, violation of Customs Act, valuation of goods, denial of natural justice, remand for re-adjudication
Mis-declaration of imported goods:
The appellant had imported electronic components claiming them to be for TV Receiver Sets under O.G.L. Appendix 6(1) of AM 1985-86 Policy. However, upon examination, it was found that the goods were actually PCB assemblies for VCR, not CTV as declared. The value of the goods was ascertained at Rs. 1,320/- CIF per piece, leading to a mis-declaration in both description and value. The adjudicating authority held that the clearance required a valid import license under Appendix 3A Sr. No. 610 of AM 85-88 Policy, and in the absence of such license, an offense under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 was attracted.
Violation of Customs Act and Valuation of Goods:
The Collector confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, along with imposing a fine and a personal penalty. The appellant, represented by an advocate, argued that the valuation adopted by the adjudicating authority was high and ignored Customs Valuation Rules. The appellant also claimed entitlement to concessional duty rates under specific notifications. The advocate highlighted discrepancies in valuation compared to similar goods imported by another entity. The respondent objected to remanding the matter, stating that the appellant had waived the right to a show cause notice and introduced new evidence without proper permission.
Denial of Natural Justice and Remand for Re-adjudication:
The Tribunal observed a denial of principles of natural justice as the appellant was not confronted with the material used to enhance the value of the goods. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter to the Collector for re-adjudication in accordance with the law. It directed the adjudicating authority to provide copies of evidence to the appellant and to re-adjudicate within three months, ensuring a personal hearing for the appellants. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the need for procedural fairness and adherence to principles of natural justice.
This judgment addresses issues related to mis-declaration of imported goods, violation of the Customs Act, valuation discrepancies, denial of natural justice, and the subsequent remand for re-adjudication. It underscores the importance of procedural fairness, confronting parties with relevant evidence, and ensuring a transparent and lawful adjudication process in customs matters.
-
1987 (8) TMI 322
Issues: Classification of insulated copper strips under Tariff Item 68
Issue 1: Classification of insulated copper strips under Tariff Item 68
The case involved the classification of insulated copper strips under Tariff Item 68. The appellants argued that despite insulation, the strips remained essentially copper strips and should be classified under Tariff Item 26A(2) of the Central Excise Tariff (CET). The department contended that the insulated strips constituted a new and distinct product, making them liable for classification under Tariff Item 68.
Analysis:
The appellants manufactured electric wires and cables using copper strips insulated with varnish, glass fiber, paper, cotton, and enamels. They sought classification under Tariff Item 26A(2) for copper strips covered with glass fiber. The department issued a show cause notice proposing classification under Tariff Item 68, asserting that the insulated copper strips had acquired a separate character as conductors. The Assistant Collector and the Appellate Collector upheld this classification, emphasizing the distinctive character of the insulated strips as conductors.
The appellants argued that a similar issue was considered by the Bombay High Court in a previous case, where it was held that the insulated copper strips should not be classified under Tariff Item 68. They contended that the nature of use should not be the criteria for classification under the CET.
The department argued that insulation was essential to make the copper strips suitable for use as conductors, equating the end product to the original copper strips. They relied on precedents and legal principles to support their position that the change in identity due to processing determines classification.
The Tribunal analyzed the contentions and referred to the Bombay High Court's judgment, emphasizing that for a manufacture to occur, the commodity must undergo changes leading to the creation of a new and distinct article. Applying this test, the Tribunal held that the insulation process did not change the character of the copper strips significantly enough to warrant classification under Tariff Item 68.
The Tribunal rejected the department's argument that the functional aspect should determine classification, emphasizing that the insulation did not transform the copper strips into a distinct commercial product. It concluded that the insulated copper strips should not attract duty under Tariff Item 68, allowing the appeal.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, holding that the insulated copper strips should not be classified under Tariff Item 68 but rather under Tariff Item 26A(2) of the CET. The decision was based on the principle that the insulation process did not alter the essential character of the copper strips significantly enough to create a new and distinct product.
-
1987 (8) TMI 321
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi ruled in favor of the appellant in the case involving the import of Industrial Laundry machines. The goods were deemed industrial type, not domestic type, leading to incorrect assessment of countervailing duty under Item 33C. The duty should be reassessed under Item 68 of the Tariff, and a refund granted to the appellants. (1987 (8) TMI 321 - CEGAT, New Delhi)
-
1987 (8) TMI 306
Issues:
1. Dispute over assessable values for N.D. Block Boards.
2. Appeal against the order of the Appellate Collector.
3. Claim for deductions based on Supreme Court judgments.
4. Remand for de novo adjudication.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Dispute over assessable values for N.D. Block Boards
The case involved M/s. Plyboard India challenging the assessable values set by the authorities for N.D. Block Boards of different thicknesses. The appellant submitted price lists for approval, but discrepancies were found in the claimed values due to trade discounts and notional expenses. Show cause notices were issued, but the appellant did not respond, leading to finalization of assessable values by the authorities.
Issue 2: Appeal against the order of the Appellate Collector
Following the unsatisfactory decision by the Appellate Collector confirming the findings of the Assistant Collector, M/s. Plyboard India appealed to the Tribunal seeking a review of the assessable values determined by the authorities. The appellant contested the decision based on certain deductions they believed were permissible under relevant Supreme Court judgments.
Issue 3: Claim for deductions based on Supreme Court judgments
The appellant, represented by Shri N. Mookherjee, advocated for deductions in line with judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding taxes, transport, interest on receivables, cost of distribution, and discounts. The appellant sought a remand for de novo adjudication, emphasizing the applicability of the Supreme Court's rulings in similar cases.
Issue 4: Remand for de novo adjudication
After considering arguments from both sides and referencing the Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal, comprising S/Shri K.L. Rekhi, Harish Chander, and V.P. Gulati, decided to remand the matter to the Assistant Collector. The directions were given to allow deductions for taxes, transport, interest on receivables, cost of distribution, and discounts as per the Supreme Court precedents. The Tribunal restricted the appellant's claim to the original submission and allowed the appeals by way of remand for further assessment.
........
|
9911796707
