|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 386 Records
-
1998 (1) TMI 209
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of "Taspa yarn"
2. Applicability of exemption under old and new tariff
3. Validity of demand under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules
4. Limitation period for raising the demand
5. Applicability of Board's instructions and guidelines
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Classification of "Taspa yarn":
The appellants were engaged in crimping/texturising duty-paid man-made and synthetic yarn, commercially known as "Taspa yarn." The primary issue was whether "Taspa yarn" should be classified under Heading 5606.00 as "special yarn" or under Heading 5403.00 as "fancy yarn." The department argued that "Taspa yarn" was a special yarn, while the appellants contended it was fancy yarn. The process of manufacture described by the appellants did not include a core yarn, which was a necessary ingredient for classification as a special yarn. The Chemical Examiner confirmed that the contested goods lacked a core yarn, supporting the appellants' claim. The Tribunal concluded that "Taspa yarn" should be classified under Chapter 54 as textured synthetic filament yarn of polyester, not under Chapter 56.
2. Applicability of exemption under old and new tariff:
Under the old tariff, Tariff Item No. 18(ii) covered textured non-cellulosic man-made filament yarn. The Tribunal found that the yarn had uniform slugs along its length, fitting the definition of textured yarn. Therefore, the yarn manufactured by the appellants before 1-3-1986 was classifiable under Item No. 18(ii), and the benefit of Notification No. 178/83 was available. For the period after 1-3-1986, the CET, 1985, based on the HSN, was considered. The Tribunal noted that the definitions in the HSN and CET were identical, and the yarn met the description of textured yarn in the HSN. Thus, the yarn was correctly classifiable under Chapter 54.
3. Validity of demand under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules:
A show cause notice dated 9-6-1988 was issued demanding duty under T.I. No. 68 of the old tariff and Heading 5606 of the CET, 1985, for the period January 1984 to March 1987. The Collector confirmed the demand of Rs. 27,80,004.60 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lakh. The appellants argued that the demand was hit by limitation and that the process of manufacture had been communicated to the department. The Tribunal noted that the department had accepted the declarations for three years, which had the same effect as classification lists. Therefore, the invocation of Rule 9(2) was misplaced.
4. Limitation period for raising the demand:
The Tribunal observed that the appellants had filed declarations from time to time, and the department had accepted these declarations. The Tribunal cited various judgments, including those of the Supreme Court and High Courts, which held that where the department was aware of the manufacturing process, suppression could not be alleged. The Tribunal concluded that the demand was hit by limitation, as the department was kept aware of the process of manufacture.
5. Applicability of Board's instructions and guidelines:
The appellants relied on the Board's clarification issued under F. No. 56/2/88-CX-I, dated 19-10-1988, which stated that yarn without a core could not be classified as special yarn. The Tribunal noted that departmental clarifications or instructions, although not binding on the Tribunal or Courts, were directory for departmental officers. The Tribunal cited judgments where it was held that the Revenue could not advance arguments contrary to the Board's instructions. The Tribunal found that the contested yarn did not have a core, was not chenille or loopwale yarn, and, per the Board's advice, could not be classified as special yarn.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the Collector's order, finding that the yarn was correctly classifiable under Chapter 54 and not under Chapter 56. The demand was also held to be hit by limitation. The appeal was allowed, and consequential relief was ordered.
-
1998 (1) TMI 208
Issues: Classification of Pidicryl 3252B under sub-heading 3906.90, Provisional approval of classification lists, Show cause notice for reclassification under sub-heading 3903.90, Recovery of differential duty, Imposition of penalty, Pre-dominance of acrylic monomer in contested goods, Disregard of claim by Adjudicating Authority, Determinative factor for classification of co-polymer and polymer blend.
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi dealt with the classification of Pidicryl 3252B under sub-heading 3906.90. The assessee had filed classification lists, and the jurisdictional Assistant Collector had provisionally approved them. However, a show cause notice was later issued claiming reclassification under sub-heading 3903.90 and seeking recovery of the differential duty for clearances made in June 1990, which was confirmed in the impugned order along with the imposition of a penalty on the appellants.
During the proceedings, the Director of the Assessee firm argued that the clearances were made when the price lists were provisional, thus no demand should be issued under Section 11A. The Departmental Representative was directed to verify this claim. Despite a lack of response from the jurisdictional Commissioner, the Tribunal did not grant an adjournment as the Assistant Collector's letter clearly indicated that the assessment at the material time was provisional, denying the request for an adjournment.
The Director also referred to correspondence with the Adjudicating Officer, highlighting that the contested goods contained a higher percentage of acrylic monomer compared to styrene. The classification should be under sub-heading 3906 based on the pre-dominance of the acrylic monomer, as per Chapter Note 4 of Chapter 39, which determines classification based on the weight pre-dominance of a particular co-polymer. The Adjudicating Authority had disregarded this claim, leading to the appeal's success on the grounds of the pre-dominance of the acrylic monomer and the determinative factor for the classification of co-polymers and polymer blends.
Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed appropriate relief in favor of the appellant based on the findings regarding the classification and the pre-dominance of the acrylic monomer in the contested goods.
-
1998 (1) TMI 207
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi dismissed the stay petition as infructuous since there was no question of duty and penalty involved. The case was listed for regular hearing on 10th March, 1998. (1998 (1) TMI 207 - CEGAT, New Delhi)
-
1998 (1) TMI 206
Issues: Duty demand on imported goods, penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962, waiver of pre-deposit requirement.
Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved the confirmation of duty demand amounting to Rs. 92,47,100 on M/s. Pawan Foam Products Pvt. Ltd., along with the imposition of penalties. The dispute arose concerning the import of a chemical, TDI, for the manufacture of TPU, cleared at a concessional rate of duty under Notification 36/94. The Department contended that the imported goods were not used as per the notification's purpose, leading to a demand for payment of differential duty. The appellants argued that although the TDI was used in the manufacturing process of TPU, the production was unsuccessful, resulting in waste products rather than TPU. They claimed that most of the imported material was utilized before production ceased in 1995, with the remaining quantity and relevant documents destroyed in a fire in April 1996.
The Commissioner rejected the appellant's case, citing various reasons such as the lack of manufacturing facilities for TPU, transfer of the entire quantity to another entity for a different purpose, absence of technical expertise, and the unavailability of reliable documents due to the fire incident. The Commissioner also invoked a larger period of limitation based on allegations of wilful misstatement and suppression of facts. The appellants disputed these claims, stating there were no admissions regarding the lack of facilities or the transfer of goods, and argued that the documents destroyed in the fire were irrelevant as the show cause notice acknowledged the incident.
The Tribunal noted that the mandatory penalty provisions came into effect in September 1996, indicating that penalties for misconduct prior to that date could not be imposed. Considering all circumstances, the Tribunal ruled that the manufacturer must deposit 25% of the duty demanded, while the penalized Director was required to deposit Rs. 10,000 towards the penalty. The Tribunal directed M/s. Pawan Foam Products Pvt. Ltd. to comply with the deposit requirements within three months and report back by a specified date, with the balance amount pre-deposit requirement being waived upon compliance.
In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision addressed the duty demand, penalties under the Customs Act, and the waiver of pre-deposit requirements, providing a detailed analysis of the factual and legal arguments presented by both parties.
-
1998 (1) TMI 205
Issues:
Appeal against order-in-appeal on duty paid copper wire rods, Modvat credit, waste and scrap clearance at nil rate of duty, rejection of refund claim.
Analysis:
The appeal was filed by M/s. Shri Shreyans Industries against the order-in-appeal dated 31-5-1990 passed by the Collector (Appeals), C. Ex., Bombay. The appellants were involved in the manufacture of super-enamelled copper winding wires falling under Heading No. 85.44 of the new Central Excise Tariff. They had taken Modvat credit on duty paid copper wire rods and cleared waste and scrap of copper at nil rate of duty under Notification No. 172/84-C.E. The issue arose when it was observed that the appellants had taken Modvat credit on inputs, making them ineligible for nil rate of duty on waste and scrap. The appellants debited the duty in RG 23A Part II Account upon objection and later filed a refund claim which was rejected based on the payment of duty according to the approved classification list.
Upon review of the case, it was found that the appellants had shown the rate of duty on waste and scrap of copper in the classification list approved by the proper officer. Although nil rate of duty was mentioned for scrap and waste of copper, it was specified that credit of the input would not be taken. However, the appellants had already taken credit of the input duty for the disputed goods but still removed waste and scrap at nil rate of duty. The jurisdictional Superintendent demanded central excise duty, which the appellants paid by reversing the credit through RG 23A Part II Account.
The Tribunal considered the provisions of Notification No. 172/84-C.E. and the amended Notification No. 246/87-C.E. It was noted that waste and scrap of copper were exempt from duty if manufactured from goods on which duty had been paid. The appellants had availed Modvat credit but removed waste and scrap at nil rate of duty. The appellants argued that under the amended notification, exemption to waste and scrap was available only if no credit was taken on the inputs generating such scrap. The Tribunal emphasized that waste and scrap were excisable and dutiable, and the Modvat scheme had specific provisions for clearance of waste and scrap from inputs with taken credit. Despite the appellants' actions to reverse the credit upon objection, the Tribunal held that the amended notification could not solely justify a refund claim when assessments were based on the approved classification list and regularized by credit reversal.
The total amount involved in the proceedings was Rs. 19,149.75. After considering all relevant facts, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the lower authorities' findings. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.
-
1998 (1) TMI 204
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi stated that the authorisation issued by the Collector was defective, lacking proper application of mind as required by Section 35B(2). The appeal was dismissed due to non-compliance with the provisions of the law.
-
1998 (1) TMI 203
Issues:
1. Challenge to the prices of imported goods by Revenue.
2. Adjudication of prices by the Additional Collector of Customs.
3. Appeal before the Tribunal regarding the prices.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Challenge to the prices of imported goods by Revenue
The appellant imported SKF bearings with different part numbers and declared certain prices. The Revenue challenged these prices by issuing a show cause notice based on SKF price lists effective from 15-4-1989, after allowing a 20% discount. The show cause notice also referred to an invoice dated 26-12-1990 in support of the prices alleged. The appellant challenged this action by filing a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court.
Issue 2: Adjudication of prices by the Additional Collector of Customs
Upon adjudication, the Additional Collector confirmed the prices based on the SKF price lists for the part numbers after allowing the 20% discount. The appellant appealed this decision before the Tribunal, arguing that the discount allowed was not the maximum as per the SKF letter dated 11-4-1989. The appellant also contended that the price list was outdated as it was from 15-4-1989, and the goods were imported almost 2.5 years later.
Issue 3: Appeal before the Tribunal regarding the prices
During the appeal, the appellant's consultant argued that the adjudicating authority erred in relying solely on the SKF price list without considering that higher discounts were possible upon request. The Tribunal noted that the discount allowed was not the maximum, and the supplier likely obtained the goods at prices lower than those listed in the SKF price list minus 20%. The Tribunal found that the transaction value of the goods should not have been ignored by the Additional Collector, who made a wrong decision by relying solely on the price list. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, providing consequential relief.
This judgment highlights the importance of considering all relevant factors, including the context of price lists and the possibility of higher discounts, in determining the transaction value of imported goods for customs valuation purposes.
-
1998 (1) TMI 202
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi found that the appellant, a manufacturer of Oxygen Gas, was collecting additional charges for cylinders which were not included in the assessable value for duty calculation. The Tribunal set aside the previous order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication by the adjudicating authority.
-
1998 (1) TMI 201
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of flavoured pan masala.
2. Reasonableness of seizure at the factory premises.
3. Justifiability of invoking the extended period for raising the demand for duty under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
4. Admissibility of exemption Notification No. 175/86.
5. Time-bar of the demand.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Classification of flavoured pan masala:
The primary issue was whether the flavoured pan masala manufactured by the appellants should be classified under sub-heading 2107.91 as held by the Department or under sub-heading 2107.90 as claimed by the appellants. The Department contended that the product did not contain betel nuts, based on the container label, the statement of a partner, and a chemical examiner's report. The appellants argued that the absence of betel nuts on the label should not determine classification and cited a judgment to support their claim. They also contested the chemical examiner's report, stating it was inconclusive and not final. The Tribunal concluded that the product did not contain betel nuts based on the label, the partner's statement, and the chemical examiner's report, thus classifying it under Heading 2107.91.
2. Reasonableness of seizure at the factory premises:
The Tribunal held that the seizure was based on a reasonable belief formed by the officers due to information received, the absence of betel nuts on the label, and the lack of a Central Excise license and records by the appellants. The reasonable belief was deemed justified and the seizure was considered legal.
3. Justifiability of invoking the extended period for raising the demand for duty under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944:
The Tribunal found that the appellants had not disclosed to the Department that the disputed product contained betel nuts, which was crucial for classification. The lack of a license and records indicated an intention to evade duty, justifying the invocation of the extended period under Section 11A(1) to cover the demand beyond six months.
4. Admissibility of exemption Notification No. 175/86:
The Judicial Member noted that the Collector had not framed this issue for determination but had clubbed the clearances of the two appellants to deny the SSI exemption. The Tribunal observed that the appellants had a strong prima facie case based on a cited judgment and the lack of clear findings by the Collector. It was held that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption Notification No. 175/86.
5. Time-bar of the demand:
The Judicial Member held that the demand was time-barred except for the period from 6-2-1990 to 14-2-1990. The appellants had declared sugandhi masala in their classification list as non-excisable, and the Department's failure to ascertain its dutiability at that time could not be attributed to suppression or wilful misstatement by the appellants. Therefore, the demand beyond six months was not sustainable.
Majority Opinion:
The Vice President agreed with the Judicial Member, emphasizing that the Department had not established its case beyond doubt regarding the product's composition. The appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt, and the penalty and confiscation were not sustainable. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, with the penalty on confiscation and the demand beyond six months being set aside.
-
1998 (1) TMI 200
The appeal was filed against the denial of Modvat credit on transformers as capital goods. Appellant argued transformers are essential for the induction furnace process. Tribunal allowed the benefit of Modvat credit on transformers as capital goods. Impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
-
1998 (1) TMI 199
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi dismissed two appeals filed by the Department regarding the availing of Modvat credit on gate passes endorsed after 31-3-1994. The Tribunal upheld the decision allowing Modvat credit up to 30-6-1994, stating that Rule 224C was considered and the Sale of Goods Act and Transfer of Property Act were not relevant in this context. The appeals were dismissed based on precedent.
-
1998 (1) TMI 198
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification 44/90 regarding the duty payment on single ingredient formulations of Rifampicin.
2. Whether the waiver of duty granted by the notification covers all formulations of Rifampicin or only specific formulations.
Analysis:
1. The appeal revolved around the question of whether single ingredient formulations of Rifampicin were liable to pay duty from February 1989 to March 1989 following the shifting of Rifampicin from the First Schedule to the Second Schedule. The Assistant Commissioner initially held that formulations of Rifampicin were not covered by Notification 44/90, which waived duty on Rifampicin and formulations with Isoniozied (INH) during the relevant period. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) disagreed, stating that the notification covered all formulations of Rifampicin.
2. The Appellate Tribunal, after considering the arguments, agreed with the appellant's representative that Notification 44/90 only exempted duty on Rifampicin and formulations with INH, not all formulations of Rifampicin. The Tribunal noted that the plain language of the notification specified the waiver for a particular formulation of Rifampicin with INH. As the goods in question did not fall under this specific formulation, the broader interpretation given by the Commissioner (Appeals) was deemed incorrect. The Tribunal emphasized that the waiver was limited to Rifampicin and its specific combination with INH, as clearly outlined in the notification.
3. The Tribunal highlighted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had relied on a previous notification, 29/89, and inferred the intention behind Notification 44/90, which was not supported by the explicit wording of the latter. The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner's reasoning was not aligned with the plain language of Notification 44/90 issued under Section 11C. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the restricted scope of the duty waiver as per the specific terms of the notification.
-
1998 (1) TMI 197
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification 44/90 regarding the duty on single ingredient formulations of Rifampicin.
2. Whether the waiver of duty under Notification 44/90 applies only to Rifampicin and formulations with INH.
Analysis:
1. The appeal dealt with the issue of whether single ingredient formulations of Rifampicin were liable to pay duty between February 1989 and March 1989 due to Rifampicin being shifted from the First Schedule to the Second Schedule. The Respondents argued that Notification 29/88 exempted all formulations based on the list of Bulk Drugs specified in the First Schedule from duty. However, the Asstt. Commissioner held that only formulations of Rifampicin with INH were covered by Notification 44/90, not all formulations of Rifampicin. The Commissioner (Appeals) disagreed, stating that Notification 44/90 applied to all formulations of Rifampicin.
2. The appellant's representative contended that Notification 44/90 specifically covered Rifampicin as a Bulk Drug and formulations with INH, excluding other formulations of Rifampicin. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the waiver of duty under the notification was limited to Rifampicin and formulations with INH. As the goods in question were not formulations of Rifampicin with INH, the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in extending the coverage of the notification. The Tribunal emphasized that the plain wording of the notification restricted the waiver to the specific formulation of Rifampicin with INH, rejecting the broader interpretation by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the previous Notification 29/89. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and allowed the appeal brought by the Appellant.
-
1998 (1) TMI 196
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai reviewed a refund claim for electronic yarn cleaner. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara found the refund not legal due to duty already collected from customers. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected a review application, citing the need for a show cause notice under Section 11A within 6 months. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Commissioner for re-determination in light of the concept of 'unjust enrichment'. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
-
1998 (1) TMI 195
The appellant filed an appeal against the rejection of their refund claim under Rule 57E of the Central Excise Rules. The Assistant Collector had sanctioned the refund under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, but the appeal was allowed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The case was remanded to the Commissioner for fresh decision as no finding was given on the appellant's claim under Section 11B.
-
1998 (1) TMI 194
Issues: Application for waiver of duty demand based on classification list, SSI exemption eligibility, and time-barred demand.
Classification List and Duty Demand:
The case involves an application for waiver of duty demand amounting to Rs. 3,74,726.68. The applicants were clearing goods under an approved classification list from 1-4-1995 to 17-8-1995. The adjudicating authority determined the goods to be classifiable under Chapter Heading 7207.10, with an effective duty rate of 10% ad valorem. A subsequent show cause notice alleged that the applicants were not entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-1993. The BIFR declared the applicants' company as a sick industrial company under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provision) Act, 1985. The applicant sought a stay on the duty demand.
SSI Exemption Eligibility:
The respondent argued that the goods were initially cleared under a provisional classification list, and a corrigendum later clarified the duty rate as 10% ad valorem. A demand was raised based on the classification under Chapter Heading 7207.10 and the denial of SSI exemption. The demand was limited to six months from the finalization of the classification list. The respondent requested the dismissal of the application.
Time-Barred Demand:
During the hearing, it was noted that the applicants were clearing goods under approved classification lists without furnishing a bond as required for provisional lists. The classification of goods was revised on 6-12-1995, and a subsequent show cause notice on 19-1-1996 raised the issue of SSI exemption eligibility. The demand was deemed partly time-barred from 6-12-1995. Considering the financial hardship due to the company's sick industrial status, the tribunal waived the total duty amount and stayed the recovery during the appeal process.
Conclusion:
The tribunal found merit in the argument that the goods were cleared under approved classification lists, leading to a redetermination of classification under Chapter Heading 7207.10. The application for waiver of duty demand was partially accepted due to the time-barred nature of the demand and the financial distress caused by the company's sick industrial status. The appeal was scheduled for final hearing at a later date.
-
1998 (1) TMI 193
The appellant imported spare parts in 1988, claimed refund after reimporting goods for repair, but failed to establish identity of goods. The certificate and invoice did not prove goods reimported were same as exported for repair. Appeal dismissed.
-
1998 (1) TMI 192
Issues:
Violation of Rule 56B of Central Excise Rules - Misuse of permission to remove and bring back semi-finished goods for processing.
Dispute regarding exemption under Notification 217/86 for duty payment on inputs.
Justification of duty demand and penalty for conscious violation of Rule 56B permission.
Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai involved a situation arising from the misuse of Rule 56B of the Central Excise Rules. This rule allows manufacturers to transport excisable goods, such as semi-finished products, for processing at another location and then bring them back to the original factory without duty payment. The case concerned a manufacturer of carburattors with units in Gujarat and Pune. The department discovered that the manufacturer was using semi-finished components from the Pune unit without returning them after processing, thereby evading duty payment. This led to the initiation of proceedings with a show cause notice demanding duty payment for the period in question.
The appellant argued that they were covered by exemption Notification 217/86, which allows the use of inputs from another factory belonging to the manufacturer without duty payment for further production. The appellant contended that even though they did not claim this exemption initially, it should not be denied. Additionally, they claimed that the dispute was revenue neutral as the goods were eligible for Modvat credit. On the other hand, the department argued that the appellant had consciously violated the Rule 56B permission by not returning the processed components as required.
Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the appellant had indeed violated the conditions of the Rule 56B permission. The permission granted to the Pune unit was for processing and returning the components, not for clearance at the appellant's end. The appellant's actions of using the components without duty payment for manufacturing carburattors clearly contravened the permission granted. The Tribunal noted that the misuse came to light during a check of the appellant's records in 1986. Despite the appellant's arguments regarding exemption Notification 217/86 and revenue neutrality, the Tribunal found no merit in their claims. The duty demand and penalty imposed on the appellant were deemed justified based on the misuse of dutiable components without payment. Consequently, the appeal was rejected by the Tribunal.
-
1998 (1) TMI 191
Issues:
1. Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff.
2. Eligibility for refund of duty paid under protest.
3. Compliance with Rule 233B of Central Excise Rules for payment of duty under protest.
Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the classification of certain products by the Respondent under Tariff Item 68 instead of Tariff Item 15A(1) of the Central Excise Tariff. The Respondent initially classified the products under Tariff Item 15A(1) but later revised the classification to Tariff Item 68 due to budgetary changes. The Asstt. Collector approved the revised classification list on 28-12-1983. The issue revolved around the refund claim filed by the Respondent for the differential duty paid between 29-3-1982 to 8-1-1984, with a portion being rejected as time-barred. The Commissioner (Appeals) admitted the appeal subject to proof of payment under protest.
2. The Department contended that the duty paid during a specific period could not be considered as paid under protest as the endorsement on the classification list had been deleted by the Asstt. Collector. However, the Tribunal noted that the endorsement was present when the revised classification list was submitted on 18-8-1982 and was approved later. Citing the Supreme Court decision in Samrat International v. Collector, the Tribunal held that payment during the period pending final approval of the classification list is deemed as duty paid under protest. The Respondent's compliance with the rules and the necessity to pay duty under the existing classification until approval were crucial factors in determining the eligibility for refund.
3. The Tribunal emphasized that the Respondent's actions were in line with the rules, as they continued to pay duty based on the earlier approved classification until the revised classification was finally approved. The provisional assessment of goods until the approval date of the revised classification was deemed valid, following the precedent set by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the eligibility for refund of duty paid under protest.
-
1998 (1) TMI 190
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi waived the pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 77,51,520 as the goods were still in the Bonded Storeroom, and there was no demand of duty until the goods were removed. The case was scheduled for regular hearing on 6th February, 1998.
............
|
9911796707
