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 revises duty order in grey cloth valuation case, stresses procedural compliance and fair decisions</h1> <h3>S. KUMARS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE</h3> S. KUMARS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE - 2003 (155) E.L.T. 525 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:1. Modification of previous order in two appeals against duty demand and penalties.2. Valuation of grey cloth, duty levy on final products, transfer of factory, refund of duty, interest on receivables, administrative charges, double calculation of amount for valuation.3. Mistake in not reflecting arguments in stay order, disposal of stay application, initiation of legal proceedings.4. Adjustment of duty payable by assessee from purchaser of the factory.5. Granting time for payment of Rs. 2 crores, consequences of non-payment.Analysis:1. The judgment pertains to the modification of a previous order in two appeals concerning duty demand and penalties. The applicant-assessee, a process house, contests the valuation of grey cloth, which is crucial for duty levy on final products. The transfer of the assessee's factory to another entity, refund of duty, interest on receivables, and administrative charges are also contentious issues.2. The arguments made by the ld. Counsel during the waiver application were not specifically reflected in the stay order, which was deemed a mistake by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal clarified that it considers all submissions during the waiver application with due attention. The Tribunal emphasized that the disposal of appeals would address all points raised, and aggrieved parties could seek legal recourse as deemed appropriate.3. The suggestion to adjust the duty payable by the assessee from the purchaser of the factory was considered complex and potentially disadvantageous to both parties. The Tribunal, after hearing the departmental representative, decided to grant the applicant a month to pay Rs. 2 crores. Failure to comply would result in the dismissal of the assessee's appeals.4. The judgment underscores the importance of procedural compliance and the Tribunal's role in Central Excise litigation. It also highlights the significance of proper valuation methods and the implications of transfer of assets on duty liabilities. The decision to grant time for payment reflects the Tribunal's balanced approach in addressing the concerns of both the assessee and the department.
TaxTMI 