9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (9) TMI 671 - AT - Central ExciseDenial of exemption alleged that Certificate issued by the Project authority of Power Grid Corporation of India did not mention the appellant s name as a sub-contractor/supplier and that even though by amendment dated 6-6-2008 to the certificate, the name of M/s. Modern Industries Ltd. was added Held that - Corrigendum has been issued vide letter dated 11-11-2010 mentioning that in the letter dated 6-6-2008, the name of M/s. Modern Industries Ltd., Abu Road, Rajasthan may be read as M/s. Modern Insulators Ltd., - subsequent letter dated 6-6-2008 amended the certificate dated 20-9-2007 clearly mentioning that this amendment shall form integral part of the Certificate dated 20-9-2007 issued for the purpose of Notification No. 108/95-C.E. - no justification for denying the duty exemption under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. to the appellants - duty demand against them, interest and penalty of equal amount under Section 11AC is not sustainable.
Issues:
1. Denial of duty exemption under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. to the appellants due to discrepancies in the certificate issued by the Project authority. 2. Imposition of duty demand, interest, and penalty on the appellants by the Additional Commissioner. 3. Dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) against the duty demand. Analysis: Issue 1: Denial of duty exemption under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. The appellants, manufacturers of electrical insulators, were denied duty exemption under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. by the Additional Commissioner. The denial was based on the grounds that the certificate issued by the Project authority did not mention the appellants' name as a sub-contractor/supplier. However, a subsequent amendment to the certificate dated 6-6-2008 clarified that the name of "M/s. Modern Industries Ltd." should be read as "M/s. Modern Insulators Ltd." The Tribunal found that this amendment formed an integral part of the original certificate issued for the purpose of the notification, thus justifying the duty exemption for the appellants. Issue 2: Imposition of duty demand, interest, and penalty The Additional Commissioner had confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 26,67,700/- along with interest against the appellants and imposed a penalty of an equivalent amount under Section 11AC. However, the Tribunal, upon review, determined that there was no merit in denying the duty exemption to the appellants. Consequently, the duty demand, interest, and penalty imposed were deemed unsustainable, leading to the waiver of the requirement of pre-deposit and the stay of recovery until the appeal's disposal. Issue 3: Dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) The Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appellants' appeal against the duty demand. The Tribunal, after considering submissions from both sides and perusing the records, concluded that the denial of duty exemption was unjustified. As a result, the Tribunal overturned the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and allowed the appellants' appeal, waiving the pre-deposit requirement and staying the recovery of duty demand, interest, and penalty until the appeal's final resolution. In summary, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, granting them the duty exemption under Notification No. 108/95-C.E. and setting aside the duty demand, interest, and penalty imposed by the Additional Commissioner. The appeal was allowed, and the recovery of dues was stayed pending the appeal's final outcome.
|
