1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Tribunal grants stay, waives pre-deposit, and halts recovery pending appeal. Commissioner's opinion cannot replace technical views.</h1> The Tribunal granted the appellants a stay on the operation of the order, waived the pre-deposit requirement, and stayed the recovery of the duty amount ... Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Demand - Evidence Issues:- Benefit of exemption under Notification No. 5/98 for 'Atraumatic Needles and Sutures'.- Consideration of manufacturer's certificate and expert evidence.- Commissioner's visual examination and personal opinion.- Time bar plea and declaration to the department.Analysis:The case involved the appellants claiming the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 5/98 for 'Atraumatic Needles and Sutures'. They used needles in manufacturing needled sutures and provided certificates from manufacturers stating the needles were atraumatic. The appellants argued that the Commissioner did not consider these certificates and instead relied on his visual examination to determine the needles were not meant for atraumatic sutures. They contended that the Commissioner's personal opinion should not override the technical opinions and expert evidence they presented. Additionally, the appellants raised a plea of time bar, stating that all details had been declared to the department, and no finding was made on the time bar issue.Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal found merit in the appellants' submissions. It held that the Commissioner could not substitute his personal opinion for the technical opinions provided by the appellants. Consequently, the Tribunal granted a stay on the operation of the order, waived the pre-deposit requirement, and stayed the recovery of the duty amount and penalty until the appeal was disposed of. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellants succeeded in showing that the Commissioner's reliance on his visual examination was not sustainable in law, and that the expert evidence presented had not been rebutted by the revenue. The case was scheduled to proceed in due course for further consideration.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
