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 sets aside duty demand order due to lack of reasoned decision on remission claim</h1> <h3>UPPER DOAB SUGAR MILLS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT-I</h3> The Tribunal set aside the order confirming duty demand on molasses due to the Commissioner's failure to pass a speaking order on the remission ... Remand - Natural justice - Non-speaking order - Remission of duty Issues: Duty liability on molasses found short in storage tanks, Commissioner's duty to pass speaking order on remission applicationThe judgment pertains to an appeal filed against an order confirming duty demand on molasses found short in storage tanks. The appellants had applied for remission of duty before the show cause notice was issued, citing a Board Circular allowing remission if the loss was within 2%. However, the Commissioner did not pass a speaking order on their application, and the Deputy Commissioner issued the duty demand notice instead of informing about the rejection of the remission application. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner was obligated to hear the appellants and pass a speaking order on the remission application. Failure to do so rendered the duty demand legally unconfirmed. Citing precedents, the Tribunal emphasized the necessity of deciding the remission claim before confirming duty liability. The judgment referred to cases such as Rosa Sugar Ltd. v. CCE, Lucknow and Triveni Engg. & Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut-I to support this position.As a result of the above findings, the impugned order confirming duty demand was set aside. The matter was remanded back to the Commissioner for a decision on the remission claim of the appellants. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to determine the duty liability of the appellants in accordance with the law after hearing them. This decision underscores the importance of due process and the Commissioner's obligation to provide a reasoned decision on remission applications before imposing duty liabilities. The judgment serves as a reminder of the procedural safeguards and the need for fair treatment of appellants in duty-related matters.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
