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>CESTAT grants stay, waives duty & penalty, citing incorrect conversion of excise duty.</h1> <h3>SURYAVANSHI SPINNING MILLS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BHOPAL</h3> The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore, granted the stay application filed by the applicants, waiving the pre-deposit of duty and penalty. The Tribunal ... Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Demand Issues:1. Stay application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty.2. Interpretation of Notification No. 55/91-C.E. and Notification No. 8/97-C.E.3. Conversion of demand for Additional Excise Duty to Basic Excise Duty.Stay Application Analysis:The applicants filed a stay application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty totaling Rs. 13,49,068/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- respectively, along with a stay on recovery proceedings. The Counsel argued that the issue pertained to the recovery of additional excise duty and highlighted the benefits availed under Notification No. 8/97-C.E. and Notification No. 55/91-C.E. The Commissioner (Appeals) acknowledged the existence of Notification No. 55/91 granting exemption to 100% EOUs but emphasized that the exemption under Notification No. 8/97 applied only to the extent exceeding the basic duty of excise. The Counsel contended that the Department erred in converting the demand for Additional Excise Duty to Basic Excise Duty, a point supported by the Commissioner's findings. Consequently, the Tribunal found a strong prima facie case in favor of granting the stay application, leading to its approval.Interpretation of Notifications Analysis:The crux of the matter revolved around the interpretation of Notification No. 55/91-C.E. and Notification No. 8/97-C.E. The Counsel argued that the existence of Notification No. 55/91 exempting Additional Excise Duty for 100% EOUs should preclude the conversion of the demand to Basic Excise Duty. The Commissioner's findings supported this argument by recognizing the validity of the exemption under Notification No. 55/91. On the other hand, the Revenue justified its actions, citing the decision of the Hon'ble Court of Punjab & Haryana in a relevant case. However, the Tribunal sided with the Counsel's interpretation, emphasizing the importance of the existing notifications and the lack of justification for converting the demand in question.Conversion of Demand Analysis:The issue of converting the demand for Additional Excise Duty to Basic Excise Duty was crucial in this case. The Counsel contended that the show cause notice specifically mentioned additional excise duty, and converting it to basic excise duty without proper justification was unwarranted. The Commissioner (Appeals) concurred with this stance, as reflected in the findings. The Tribunal, considering the factual position and the Commissioner's findings, found merit in the argument presented by the Counsel. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the stay application, highlighting the discrepancy in converting the demand and the absence of a clear mention in the show cause notice, leading to the approval of the waiver of pre-deposit and penalty.This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore, sheds light on the intricacies of the issues raised in the case, the arguments presented by the parties, and the ultimate decision rendered by the Tribunal in favor of the applicants seeking relief from the pre-deposit of duty and penalty.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
