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 Upheld Duty Demand & Penalty for Manufacturing Activities Under Notification No. 67/95-C.E.</h1> <h3>MALWA FASTNERS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH</h3> MALWA FASTNERS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH - 2006 (193) E.L.T. 120 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:- Challenge to order-in-appeal affirming duty demand with penalty- Entitlement to benefit of Notification No. 67/95-C.E.Analysis:1. Challenge to order-in-appeal affirming duty demand with penalty:The appeal in question challenged the order-in-appeal that upheld the duty demand of Rs. 67,275/- with a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- imposed by the adjudicating authority. Despite no representation from the appellants, the tribunal heard the Respondent and reviewed the record. The facts regarding the manufacture of tubes, pipes, and plastics by the appellants, along with the utilization of waste and scrap in the production of plastic granules, were not in dispute.2. Entitlement to benefit of Notification No. 67/95-C.E.:The central issue revolved around whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 67/95-C.E. The tribunal noted that the notification's benefit could only be availed if the inputs were used in the manufacture of dutiable goods cleared on payment of duty, not where goods were cleared at a nil rate of duty. The waste and scrap generated by the appellants were utilized in manufacturing re-processed granules cleared at a nil rate of duty under a different exemption notification (No. 131/95-C.E.). The tribunal rejected the appellants' argument that nil rate of duty equated to an appropriate duty under the law, emphasizing that without a specific exemption for nil duty, it could not be considered as duty paid. Consequently, the tribunal upheld the denial of the benefit of Notification No. 67/95-C.E. to the appellants, finding no illegality in the impugned order and dismissing the appeal.This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, highlights the issues involved, the arguments presented, and the tribunal's decision based on the interpretation of relevant notifications and legal principles.
TaxTMI 