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 rules in favor of SKL, demands pre-deposit from SRI in excise duty dispute</h1> <h3>SREE KARTHIKEYA LAMINATION INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. Versus CCE, TRICHY</h3> SREE KARTHIKEYA LAMINATION INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. Versus CCE, TRICHY - 2004 (176) E.L.T. 539 (Tri. - Chennai) Issues:1. Demand of duty on M/s. Sree Karthikeya Lamination Industries Pvt. Ltd. (SKL) for clearances of HDPE Laminated Fabrics.2. Demand of duty on M/s. Sri Ram Industries (Woven Sacks) Pvt. Ltd. (SRI) for HDPE Tape Yarn, HDPE Woven Fabrics, and HDPE Woven Sacks.3. Effective date of revised classification of goods.4. Dispute regarding goods cleared under Chapter X Procedure.5. Decision on differential duty confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals).6. Liability of M/s. SRI for payment of duty on goods manufactured under Chapter X Procedure.Analysis:1. The judgment addresses a demand of duty on SKL for clearances of HDPE Laminated Fabrics based on revised classification of goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand, citing the Apex Court's ruling on the effective date of classification. However, SKL argued for a different effective date based on the Apex Court's judgment in another case. The Tribunal found a factual dispute regarding goods cleared under Chapter X Procedure, which was not addressed by the lower appellate authority. Consequently, the demand of differential duty on SKL was deemed unsustainable, leading to a full waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery for the amount.2. Regarding the demand of duty on SRI for goods received from SKL under Chapter X Procedure, the Tribunal noted the re-quantification of differential duty by the Central Excise Range Superintendent. SRI claimed to have already paid a portion of the duty but failed to provide evidence. As a result, the Tribunal directed SRI to pre-deposit the outstanding amount within a specified timeframe. The decision emphasized the importance of providing evidence to support claims related to duty payments.3. The judgment highlights the significance of resolving factual disputes, especially concerning the manufacturing and clearance procedures followed by the parties involved. It underscores the need for thorough examination of evidence and proper documentation to substantiate claims related to duty payments and classification of goods. The Tribunal's decision reflects a balanced approach to addressing the issues raised by the parties while upholding the principles of excise duty liability and procedural compliance in line with relevant legal precedents and regulations.
TaxTMI 