TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal remands case for fresh decision, condones appeal delay, directs duty calculation review, stresses personal hearing.</h1> <h3>SHRI KHODIYAR ROLLING MILLS Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., RAJKOT</h3> SHRI KHODIYAR ROLLING MILLS Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., RAJKOT - 2002 (147) E.L.T. 250 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:Delay in filing appeal, condonation of delay, duty liability calculation, interpretation of rules and circulars, remand of case.Delay in filing appeal and Condonation of Delay:The appeal in this case was delayed by 39 days due to the belief that the Commissioner's order needed rectification before filing an appeal. The Tribunal considered the explanation and condoned the delay, allowing the application.Duty Liability Calculation:The appellants had an existing rolling mill with a determined duty liability. They installed a standby pinion stand (Rolling Mill No. 2) in addition to Rolling Mill No. 1, with the same capacity. Show cause notices were issued for recovery of duty for Rolling Mill No. 2. The appellants argued they had not installed an additional rolling mill but an additional pinion stand without a reheating furnace. They referred to a circular stating that in a unit with one heating furnace and two rolling mills, the capacity of the higher mill should be considered the unit's assessed capacity. The Commissioner confirmed the duty demand, citing lack of evidence of payment.Interpretation of Rules and Circulars:The Tribunal found that the Commissioner decided the issue without considering relevant rules and circulars, relying on the admission of duty liability by the assessee. However, the appellants had not admitted the duty liability for the amounts in the notice, claiming they had discharged the duty for one rolling mill and were not liable for more since Rolling Mill No. 2 had the same capacity. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner should review the case considering the rules and circular cited by the appellants, granting a personal hearing to the assessees.Remand of Case:In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and remanded the case back to the Commissioner for a fresh decision after considering the relevant rules and circulars and granting a personal hearing to the assessees. The appeal was allowed by way of remand.
TaxTMI 