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>Applicant Must Deposit Rs. 20.00 Lakhs for Duty or Risk Appeal Dismissal</h1> <h3>ALKEM LABORATORIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., RAIGAD</h3> ALKEM LABORATORIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., RAIGAD - 2007 (208) E.L.T. 89 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:Valuation of goods based on change in basis from cost of manufacture to prevalent transaction value; Allegation of job worker being an independent manufacturer; Requirement of pre-deposit for appeal.Valuation of Goods Issue:The case involved a dispute regarding the valuation of goods manufactured by the applicant, with a change in basis from cost of manufacture to 115% of the cost. Show cause notices were issued for recovering differential duties, leading to a penalty imposition and interest confirmation by the original adjudicating authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) required the applicant to pre-deposit 50% of the duty and penalty, which, upon non-compliance, resulted in the dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case for a complete waiver of pre-deposit. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the applicant to deposit Rs. 20.00 lakhs towards duty within a specified time, with non-compliance leading to the dismissal of the appeal without further notice.Job Worker Independence Issue:The applicant contended that M/s. Alkon Industries, the alleged job worker, operated as an independent manufacturer on a principal-to-principal basis. The applicant argued that the transaction between them was not under supervisory control, citing previous Tribunal decisions supporting their stance. However, the Revenue asserted that M/s. Alkon Industries worked under the applicant's supervision and control, referencing documents submitted to the Food and Drugs Administration. The Tribunal noted the absence of a written agreement or memorandum of understanding between the parties, highlighting clauses in the documents indicating the applicant's acquisition of services from M/s. Alkon Industries. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the applicant failed to establish a strong case on merits, leading to the directive for a partial deposit for the appeal to proceed.Pre-Deposit Requirement Issue:The issue of pre-deposit arose when the Commissioner (Appeals) mandated the applicant to pre-deposit 50% of the duty and penalty for the appeal to be considered. The applicant argued against this requirement, emphasizing the strength of their case based on Tribunal decisions and the harshness of the pre-deposit order. However, the Tribunal, after evaluating the submissions, found the applicant's case lacking in establishing a prima facie basis for a complete waiver of pre-deposit. Consequently, the Tribunal directed a specific amount to be deposited within a stipulated timeframe, with non-compliance leading to the dismissal of the appeal.This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the valuation dispute, the independence of the job worker, and the pre-deposit requirement, showcasing the Tribunal's considerations and decisions on each issue.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
