|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 533 Records
-
2002 (9) TMI 544
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi ruled in favor of the appellant in an application for stay regarding duty claimed on front axle assembly prices sold to Maruti Udyog Ltd. The appellant argued that duty should not be applied uniformly as sales were at different commercial levels and prices. The Tribunal waived the pre-deposit condition, allowing the stay application.
-
2002 (9) TMI 543
Issues Involved: Appeal against duty demand, penalty imposition, and confirmation of duty demand.
Summary:
The appeals were filed against an order confirming duty demand and imposing penalties on the appellants. The main issue was the clandestine manufacture and clearance of Polyester Yarn without paying central excise duty. The appellants denied the allegations made against them, contesting the duty demand. The Commissioner passed the impugned order against them, which was challenged in the appeals.
The appellants argued that there was no reliable evidence to prove the clandestine activities. They contended that the impugned order was based on assumptions and presumptions drawn from inconclusive evidence. The statements of the appellants were retracted, and the entries in the diary and loose sheets were insufficient to establish the allegations.
Regarding the clandestine removal of goods, reliance was placed on the diary and loose sheets found from one of the appellants. However, the Tribunal found that the statements were inconsistent and lacked corroboration. The evidence was inconclusive and inadmissible to confirm duty liability on the company.
Similarly, the allegations of manufacturing polyester chips without accountal were not proven with reliable evidence. The company's denial of receiving goods clandestinely was supported by the lack of evidence suggesting otherwise. The entries in the diary and loose sheets were deemed unreliable and insufficient for proving the allegations.
The Tribunal concluded that the impugned order could not be sustained against any of the appellants. The appeals were allowed, and the order of the Commissioner was set aside, providing consequential relief if applicable under the law.
-
2002 (9) TMI 542
Issues Involved:
1. Variance between actual and theoretical quantity of cut tobacco used.
2. Wrong adjustment of the weight of paper in waste cigarettes.
3. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 356/86.
4. Alleged contravention of Central Excise Rules, including Rule 9(1) and Rule 226.
5. Demand for duty and imposition of penalty.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Variance between actual and theoretical quantity of cut tobacco used:
The core issue revolved around the variance between the quantity of cut tobacco actually used in the manufacture of cigarettes and the quantity that should have been used according to the theoretical specification weight declared by the appellant. The Collector concluded that the Cigarette Manual is merely a guideline and not binding on the assessee. However, the Tribunal cited the case of Asia Tobacco Co. Ltd., emphasizing that departmental instructions in the Cigarette Manual must be followed. The Tribunal found that the Collector did not rely on the data from Appendix 'F', which is crucial for determining variances. The Tribunal held that any notice issued on excessive consumption or incorrect accounts must be based on Appendix 'F' data, and the Collector's findings were set aside for not adhering to this requirement.
2. Wrong adjustment of the weight of paper in waste cigarettes:
The show cause notice alleged that the appellant wrongly adjusted the weight of paper contained in waste cigarettes towards cut tobacco. The Tribunal found that the proforma in Appendix 'C' records the gross weight of waste cigarettes, which includes paper, and this weight is later segregated in Appendix 'E'. The Tribunal concluded that the Collector's findings were incorrect as the appellants had accounted for the weight of waste cigarettes appropriately. The Tribunal emphasized that the reconciliation between Appendices 'C' and 'E' was not required as the actual reconciliation register is Appendix 'F', which was not considered by the Collector.
3. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 356/86:
The Collector denied the exemption under Notification No. 356/86 for the excess cut tobacco, arguing that it was not used in the manufacture of cigarettes. The Tribunal disagreed, citing Supreme Court rulings that the term "for use" should be interpreted as "intended for use" and not "actually used". The Tribunal held that since the cut tobacco was issued for the intended purpose of manufacturing cigarettes, the exemption under Notification No. 356/86 was applicable. The Tribunal found no evidence of unaccounted stock of cut tobacco or its removal from the factory, thus rejecting the Collector's findings.
4. Alleged contravention of Central Excise Rules, including Rule 9(1) and Rule 226:
The show cause notice alleged contraventions of Rule 9(1) for non-payment of duty and Rule 226 for improper maintenance of accounts. The Tribunal found that the duty demands were based on assumptions and not on concrete evidence. It concluded that the appellants had maintained the required records as per the Cigarette Manual. The Tribunal also noted that no penalty under Rule 9(2) was imposed, indirectly supporting the appellants' contention that no clandestine removal had occurred.
5. Demand for duty and imposition of penalty:
The Tribunal found that the duty demands were based on presumptions and assumptions, which could not be supported legally. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in the Oudh Sugar Mills case, the Tribunal ruled that such demands could not be upheld. Consequently, the Tribunal found no basis for imposing penalties under Rule 209(1) or Rule 226, as there was no evidence of non-maintenance of records or removal of goods in contravention of the Central Excise Rules.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the Collector's order, finding that the demands for duty and the imposition of penalties were not justified. The appeal was allowed, providing relief to the appellants.
-
2002 (9) TMI 540
Issues:
1. Correctness of the Commissioner (Appeals) order confirming the Order-in-Original passed by the Addl. Commissioner.
2. Assessment of imported car under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act read with Section 3 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992.
3. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty.
4. Dispute over the valuation of the imported car.
5. Allegation of improper assessment and imposition of fines.
6. Request for reduction in redemption fine based on market value of the goods.
7. Need for remand to the original authority for reevaluation.
Analysis:
1. The appellant contested the correctness of the Commissioner (Appeals) order, which upheld the Order-in-Original passed by the Addl. Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner assessed the imported car under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act along with Section 3 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992. The car was valued at Rs. 2,20,148/- and directed to be redeemed for a fine of Rs. 2,20,000/-, with an additional penalty of Rs. 20,000/- imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act.
2. The appellant argued that the valuation of the car was contested as it was a second-hand car gifted by a friend and had undergone significant wear and tear. The appellant claimed that the Proper Officer had initially valued the car at Rs. 1.25 lakhs, but the revenue revised the valuation based on the list price in 1989 from Parker's car price guide. The appellant objected to this valuation method, stating that the Addl. Commissioner lacked the authority to reassess the value after the Proper Officer's acceptance.
3. The consultant for the appellant requested the order to be set aside, while the DR for the respondent highlighted the lack of evidence showing full assessment and clearance of the goods from the docks. The Addl. Commissioner justified the valuation method based on legal precedents, emphasizing compliance with the law and tribunal judgments. The DR argued that the assessment was lawful and did not warrant interference.
4. The tribunal examined the submissions and determined that the car, being second-hand and requiring a license, was subject to proper assessment. The plea regarding full assessment of the Bill of Entry was deemed unfounded as it was not raised before the Additional Commissioner. The tribunal noted the absence of evidence supporting full assessment and clearance of the goods for home consumption, leading to the Addl. Commissioner initiating adjudication proceedings.
5. While rejecting the plea challenging the Addl. Commissioner's actions, the tribunal acknowledged the need to reevaluate the redemption fine based on the market value of the goods at the time of import. The tribunal directed a remand to the original authority to determine the market value considering the age of the car, emphasizing the adherence to principles of natural justice in reevaluating the fine and penalty.
-
2002 (9) TMI 539
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata allowed the appeal by directing the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone the 17-day delay in filing the appeal. The main case was remanded for disposal. Stay petition was also disposed of.
-
2002 (9) TMI 538
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, in the case of an appeal against a refund claim, held that the order granting the refund lacked reasons. The Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in setting aside the order and remanding it for fresh consideration by the Assistant Collector. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
-
2002 (9) TMI 537
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of whether M/s. SATL and its buyers, M/s. CEAT and M/s. Goodyear, are "related persons" under Section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Validity of the demand for differential duty due to alleged undervaluation.
3. Appropriateness of invoking the extended period under Section 11A(1) of the Act for alleged suppression of facts.
4. Correctness of the quantification of the duty demand.
5. Whether the case should be remanded for de novo adjudication or the appeals should be allowed.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Determination of "Related Persons":
- The Commissioner argued that M/s. SATL, CEAT, and Goodyear are related due to mutual interest, primarily citing the interest-free loan and equipment provided by CEAT and Goodyear to M/s. SATL.
- The Commissioner relied on the Supreme Court judgment in McDowell & Co. v. Commercial Tax Officer, emphasizing that the legal relationship must be determined by the true nature of transactions, not just their form.
- The Tribunal Member (Judicial) initially supported the Commissioner's view but noted the need for further clarity on the relationship and inconsistencies in duty quantification, suggesting a remand.
- Tribunal Member (Technical) disagreed, stating that the interest-free loan alone does not establish a mutual interest in each other's business as required by Section 4(4)(c). He referenced judgments in Plus Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE and International Computer India Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. CCE, which held that interest-free loans do not establish a relationship.
- The Technical Member also cited the Supreme Court's decision in UOI v. Atic Industries Ltd., which ruled that mere shareholding and directorship do not imply mutual interest.
- The third Member (Judicial) concurred with the Technical Member, emphasizing the Supreme Court's ruling in Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. v. CCE & Cus., which clarified that shareholders do not have an interest in the business merely by holding shares.
2. Validity of the Demand for Differential Duty:
- The Commissioner confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 8,62,04,576/- after considering deductions for transport charges, taxes, discounts, and interest.
- The appellants argued that the correct liability should be significantly lower, supported by a CA certificate and their own calculations.
- The Tribunal noted inconsistencies in the figures presented by both the appellants and the Commissioner, suggesting a need for reconciliation.
3. Extended Period under Section 11A(1) for Alleged Suppression of Facts:
- The Commissioner invoked the extended period, alleging that M/s. SATL suppressed facts and willfully misdeclared the assessable value to evade duty.
- The Tribunal Member (Technical) found that the appellant's failure to disclose the interest-free loan and equipment supply justified the extended period's invocation.
- However, the Member (Technical) also noted that from the date of the department's knowledge of these facts (17-12-1997), the demand would be barred by limitation.
4. Correctness of Duty Quantification:
- The Tribunal observed discrepancies in the duty quantification, with different figures presented by the Commissioner and the appellants.
- The Judicial Member suggested remanding the case for accurate quantification.
5. Remand vs. Allowing Appeals:
- The Judicial Member initially proposed a remand for de novo adjudication to reconcile inconsistencies and establish the relationship adequately.
- The Technical Member disagreed, concluding that the relationship was not established and the demand was unsustainable on merits.
- The third Member (Judicial) resolved the difference, agreeing with the Technical Member that remand was unnecessary and the appeals should be allowed.
Conclusion:
- The appeals were allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The Tribunal concluded that M/s. SATL was not related to M/s. CEAT and M/s. Goodyear under Section 4(4)(c) of the Act, and the demand for differential duty was not sustainable. The extended period for invoking the demand was also deemed inappropriate post-disclosure of relevant facts.
-
2002 (9) TMI 533
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Chennai allowed a Misc. application for rectification of mistake in an order regarding trade discount. The Tribunal found that the issue before the Commissioner was only cash discount, not trade discount. The order remanding the case for trade discount was amended as an error on the face of the record. The portion of the order related to trade discount remanding was deleted. ROM was allowed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 531
Issues:
Denial of Modvat credit.
Analysis:
The judgment involves appeals against orders related to the denial of Modvat credit, heard together and disposed of in a common order. The dispute pertains to the period from 7-8-1990 to 12-12-1990, with the appellants engaged in manufacturing MS ingots under a specific sub-heading of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Additional Commissioner ordered the recovery of an amount wrongly availed by the appellants under Rule 57-I. The Commissioner (Appeals) had dropped penalty charges against an individual, leading the appellants to argue that the charge against them for incorrect Modvat credit availing should not stand.
The core issue revolves around the validity of gate passes used to avail Modvat credit. The lower authorities found the gate passes to be fictitious, leading to the denial of Modvat credit. Detailed scrutiny of documentary and oral evidence, cross-examination, and correspondence supported this finding. The Additional Commissioner highlighted instances of non-existent consignee parties and fake sales-tax numbers on invoices, discrediting the authenticity of the gate passes. The Adjudicating Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) concurred on the fictitious nature of the gate passes, emphasizing the lack of credible evidence supporting the appellants' claims.
The judgment also delves into the authenticity of consignments received from specific firms in Mandi Gobindgarh. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that these firms were fake and non-existent, with no evidence presented by the appellants to counter this finding. Cross-examination of witnesses and letters from the alleged manufacturers further undermined the appellants' position. The appellants' argument regarding the reliability of manufacturers and the existence of the firms from whom they purchased inputs was refuted based on the lack of cooperation for cross-examination and contradictory evidence.
In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the Department failed to address the appellants' key arguments adequately. Due to this failure, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority for a detailed reconsideration and a comprehensive decision based on the points raised by the appellants.
-
2002 (9) TMI 529
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata found that an appeal filed against a letter written by the Superintendent was not maintainable as it was not an appealable order. The appellants were advised to approach the jurisdictional Central Excise Authorities for resolution. The appeal was rejected for lack of merit.
-
2002 (9) TMI 528
Issues:
1. Duty demand confirmation and penalties imposed by Commissioner of Central Excise.
2. Alleged ineligible credit availed by the appellant.
3. Suppression of facts and application of extended period of limitation.
4. Merits of the case regarding discrepancies in receipt of components.
5. Reopening of assessment at the receiving end.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the order by the Commissioner confirming duty demand of Rs. 64,81,078/-, penalties under Rule 57-I(4) and Rule 173-Q(1)(bb), and interest under Rule 57-I(5) for the period from August 1994 to September 1997. The appellant, a motor vehicle manufacturer, faced allegations of availing ineligible credit under Rule 57-I. The Commissioner's order was contested on the grounds of limitation and merit, with detailed replies provided to show cause notices.
2. The appellant was accused of availing ineligible credit amounting to Rs. 1.44 crores during the specified period. The show cause notice highlighted discrepancies in receiving components from Ennore factory, leading to the improper declaration of inputs and duty credit. The appellant argued against the demand, citing awareness by the department of their practices and prior show cause notices on similar issues.
3. The Commissioner, in the impugned order, rejected the appellant's contentions on limitation, citing suppression of facts due to the lack of intimation about continuing practices. However, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant on limitation grounds, emphasizing the department's awareness of the appellant's procedures. The demand under the show cause notice dated 4-8-99 was deemed barred by limitation.
4. On the merits of the case, the appellant contended that excesses in component receipt were offset by shortages, and discrepancies were due to various reasons like despatch errors. The appellant detailed the accounting procedures and explanations for discrepancies, asserting compliance with duty payment requirements and proper documentation.
5. The appellant argued against a different assessment at the receiving end without reopening the assessment at the Ennore factory. However, the Tribunal did not delve into this contention due to the finding that the demand was time-barred. Ultimately, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, granting the appellant all consequential reliefs.
-
2002 (9) TMI 525
Issues:
- Confirmation of duty demand and penalties
- Allegation of clandestine removal
- Discrepancy in stock verification
Confirmation of Duty Demand and Penalties:
The case involved appeals by M/s. M.P. Iron & Steel Co. and Shri N.K. Jain against the confirmation of duty demand and penalties imposed by the Commissioner. The Commissioner confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 52,86,759 along with penalties, including a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on Shri N.K. Jain, the General Manager. The dispute arose from a discrepancy in the stock of Billets and Blooms found during a physical verification by Central Excise officers at the factory premises. The appellants argued that the alleged shortage was due to grinding loss, which is a normal part of the manufacturing process, and the waste generated is cleared on payment of duty. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner's findings were based on a presumption without concrete evidence of clandestine removal. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's decision, holding that there was no sustainable evidence to support the duty demand and penalties.
Allegation of Clandestine Removal:
The primary issue revolved around the allegation of clandestine removal based on the difference in weight between the Billets and Blooms and the wire rods obtained after grinding. The appellants contended that the weight difference was due to the grinding process, which generates waste and scrap cleared on payment of duty. The Tribunal agreed with the appellants, emphasizing that there was no evidence of actual removal of goods outside the factory without duty payment. The Tribunal highlighted that the loss in weight during grinding was a normal occurrence and not indicative of clandestine removal. Citing previous judgments, the Tribunal concluded that the allegation of clandestine removal lacked substantiated evidence and was not justified.
Discrepancy in Stock Verification:
The discrepancy in stock verification arose due to the difference in weight between the Billets and Blooms recorded in the RG.I Register and the wire rods/rounds produced after grinding. The appellants explained that this difference was attributable to grinding loss, which is an inherent part of the manufacturing process. They argued that the waste generated during grinding accounted for the weight variance and was duly cleared on payment of duty. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and evidence, found that the Commissioner's findings were not legally sustainable. The Tribunal emphasized that the weight difference was a result of the grinding process and waste generation, not clandestine removal. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the duty demand and penalties imposed by the Commissioner, and directed any necessary relief to the appellants as per the law.
-
2002 (9) TMI 524
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of the "d" factor for annual capacity of production.
2. Validity of the reports prepared by the Central Excise Officers.
3. Denial of cross-examination request by the appellant.
4. Evaluation of evidence provided by the appellant versus the Departmental reports.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Determination of the "d" Factor for Annual Capacity of Production:
The core dispute revolves around the "d" factor, which represents the pinion center distance in the formula for determining the annual capacity of production for hot re-rolling mills. The Commissioner of Central Excise determined the "d" factor as 275 mm, leading to an annual capacity of 16123.536 MT. However, the appellant contended that the "d" factor should be 254 mm, as certified by the manufacturer of the pinion stand.
2. Validity of the Reports Prepared by the Central Excise Officers:
The appellant challenged the accuracy and methodology of the reports by the Central Excise Officers, arguing that:
- The officers used ordinary tape/scale instead of precise instruments like Micro Metres or Vernier Calipers.
- The reports lacked details on the measurement techniques, instruments used, and qualifications of the person measuring.
- The reports did not mention the model of the Pinion Stand or the manufacturer's specifications.
- There were inconsistencies, such as referring to two upper and two lower pinions, while the appellant's mill had only three pinions.
3. Denial of Cross-Examination Request by the Appellant:
The appellant's request to cross-examine the visiting officers and the so-called expert was denied by the Commissioner, which the appellant argued was a violation of the principles of natural justice. The appellant cited several legal precedents to support the necessity of cross-examination to establish the credibility of the reports.
4. Evaluation of Evidence Provided by the Appellant versus the Departmental Reports:
The appellant presented various documents from 1996, including offers, orders, invoices, and certificates from the manufacturer, all indicating the "d" factor as 254 mm. These documents predated the introduction of the scheme for levy of duty based on production capacity, suggesting no motive for misrepresentation. The Tribunal found these documents credible and noted that the Commissioner did not dispute their genuineness. In contrast, the Tribunal found the Departmental reports lacking in detail and method, and thus unreliable.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal weighed the evidentiary value of the appellant's documents against the Departmental reports and found the former more reliable. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to determine the annual production capacity using the "d" factor of 254 mm. The Tribunal noted that re-verification was not possible as the mill had been dismantled, thus resolving the dispute based on the available evidence.
Final Judgment:
The appeal was disposed of with a directive to the Commissioner to adopt the "d" factor as 254 mm for determining the annual production capacity.
-
2002 (9) TMI 523
The appeal by M/s. Kapurthala Northern India Tanners Ltd. questioned the availability of exemption under Notification No. 2/94 for Bone Tallow. The Tribunal ruled that the exemption only applies to Mutton Tallow, not Bone Tallow, based on strict interpretation. The Commissioner reduced the penalty to Rs. 10,000 but confirmed the duty demand, rejecting the appeal.
-
2002 (9) TMI 522
The appeal was against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Chandigarh regarding the classification of silica extracted from rice husk ash. The appellant claimed classification under sub-heading 2621.00 with nil rate of duty. The Department issued a show cause notice proposing a different classification under sub-heading 2811.90. The adjudicating authority dropped the demand, but the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the Department's appeal. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not provide a plausible explanation for the change in classification, so the appeal was remanded for further adjudication.
-
2002 (9) TMI 521
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi allowed the appeal of the appellants who were denied Modvat credit of Rs. 19,350 by the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise. The denial was based on the appellants not filing duplicate copies of invoices, but they had proof of submission. The Tribunal found the denial unjustified and set aside the Commissioner's order.
-
2002 (9) TMI 520
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi allowed the appeal, stating that the indirect use of fuels in the generation of electricity for manufacturing fertilizers is covered by the exemption. This decision was based on previous orders and the Apex Court rulings in the appellant's own case. The appellants are entitled to consequential relief.
-
2002 (9) TMI 519
Issues:
1. Waiver of payment of duty confirmed by the impugned authority and penalty.
2. Dispute regarding the concept of depot price for assessment under Central Excise Tariff Act.
3. Determination of the place of removal for excise duty calculation.
4. Passing of title and appropriation of goods in the context of transportation and insurance charges.
5. Interpretation of Sale of Goods Act in relation to excise duty assessment.
6. Comparison of judgments in Escort JCB v. CCE and CCE v. Prabhat Zarda with the current case.
7. Evaluation of the Tribunal's decision in Associated Strips Ltd. v. CCE.
Analysis:
1. The judgment dealt with an application for the waiver of duty and penalty. The impugned order by the Commissioner held that the dispute centered around the introduction of depot price for assessment, disallowing abatement of freight and insurance charges for assessable value calculation.
2. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing power line courier systems, faced a show cause notice for allegedly evading duty by misrepresenting the place of removal. The Commissioner held that customer premises constituted the place of removal post-introduction of a new definition under section 4 of the Central Excise Act.
3. The appellant contended that once goods are handed to the carrier, the title transfers to the consignee, relying on the Sale of Goods Act. Reference was made to the Tribunal's decision in Associated Strips Ltd., emphasizing the passage of title upon delivery to the transporting agency.
4. The argument was countered by the Departmental Representative citing judgments in Escort JCB v. CCE and CCE v. Prabhat Zarda. However, the Tribunal distinguished these precedents in the case of Associated Strips Ltd., asserting that transportation and insurance charges post-appropriation cannot impact valuation.
5. The Tribunal opined that the demand on the assessee was incorrect as appropriation occurred at the factory gate, and subsequent actions such as transportation were post-appropriation services. The relationship between the manufacturer and consumer was deemed contractual for transportation and insurance, influencing the prima facie view favoring the appellant.
6. In light of the above analysis, the Tribunal decided to waive deposit and stay recovery during the appeal's pendency, indicating a preliminary inclination towards the appellant's position based on the interpretation of legal principles and precedents cited in the case.
-
2002 (9) TMI 516
Issues:
Error apparent in passing the final order regarding Modvat credit based on the xerox copy of the triplicate copy of the bill of entry without producing the triplicate copy itself.
Analysis:
The respondents filed a miscellaneous application pointing out an error in the final order where the Tribunal allowed the department's appeal due to Modvat credit not being allowed based on a xerox copy of the triplicate copy of the bill of entry without producing the triplicate copy itself. The respondents had earlier moved a miscellaneous application seeking a hearing for the production of the original triplicate bill of entry, which was dismissed. However, upon reviewing the final order, they found an error in the Tribunal's decision. The respondents argued that they had indeed produced the original triplicate copy of the bill of entry to obtain credit, which was required at multiple plants, hence only a xerox copy was filed. The original and appellate authorities had confirmed the production of the triplicate copy at all relevant places, supporting the respondents' claim for Modvat credit.
The respondents emphasized that the triplicate copy of the bill of entry was filed for record purposes as there was only one bill of entry covering consignments for various factories, and keeping the bill of entry at the Head Office was necessary. Both authorities had allowed Modvat credit based on this practice. The Tribunal, after examining the case records and the triplicate copy of the bill of entry produced in court, found the error apparent on the face of the record. Consequently, the Tribunal recalled the final order and rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue, affirming the respondents' entitlement to Modvat credit based on the production of the triplicate copy of the bill of entry.
In conclusion, the Tribunal rectified the error in the final order and upheld the respondents' claim for Modvat credit based on the production of the original triplicate copy of the bill of entry, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
-
2002 (9) TMI 494
Validity of retrospective operation of the explanation to the first proviso to sub-section (1-A) of section 5 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 which was inserted by Act No. 1 of 1996 on March 5, 1996 with effect from April 1, 1988 challenged
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. It is a settled position that the Legislature can impose tax retrospectively though it cannot be arbitrary and unreasonable. On a closer scrutiny it becomes clear that till August 18, 1995 (date of pronouncement of High Court judgment) they could have and in fact collected the tax. The explanation was inserted on March 5, 1996 so, in effect, the retrospectivity which really affects them, is only for about six months. Even if they have not passed on burden of tax to the customers during that period, the effect cannot be said to be so unreasonable, arbitrary and harsh as to invalidate the explanation. Such occasional hiccups are not unusual incidents of business.
However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we permit the appellants to pay sales tax levied/leviable during the period August 18, 1995 to March 5, 1996 in six equal installments, to be paid in each month commencing from October 1, 2002. If any of the appellants fails to pay any installment within two weeks of the same becoming due, it would be open to the concerned authority to collect the amount of tax due, in lump sum, in accordance with law.
............
|
9911796707
