TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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 Upholds Abatement Claim for Factory Closure Period</h1> The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision allowing the abatement claim of the respondents for a specific period when their stenter was closed for 10 ... Appeal - Production capacity based duty - Abatement - Production capacity based duty - Abatement claim Issues:- Abatement claim allowed by Commissioner- Requirement of entire factory closure for abatement claim- Pre-deposit of duty for the entire month before lodging abatement claimAnalysis:1. The appeal was filed against an order allowing the abatement claim of the respondents for a specific period and directing them to pay interest and penalty. The respondents claimed abatement for a period when their stenter was closed, but did not initially deposit the duty for the entire month. The Revenue challenged the abatement claim, arguing that the entire factory did not close, and full duty pre-deposit was necessary.2. The Revenue contended that the entire factory should have closed for abatement, and full duty pre-deposit was mandatory. However, the Tribunal found that the abatement could be claimed for a single stenter if closed for a continuous period, as per the relevant rule. In this case, the stenter was closed for 10 days, justifying the abatement claim.3. Regarding the duty pre-deposit requirement, the Tribunal clarified that the rule did not mandate pre-deposit before lodging the claim. The rule only required duty payment for a full month when claiming abatement for less than a month. The respondents eventually deposited the full duty during the claim process, as allowed by law.4. The Tribunal highlighted that the Revenue's arguments went beyond the scope of the show cause notice and lacked legal basis. The Commissioner correctly considered the duty deposit and allowed the abatement claim, imposing penalty and interest, which the respondents accepted. As the Revenue did not challenge this aspect, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal for lack of merit.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
