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>Judge rules in favor of appellant in duty dispute over returned goods</h1> <h3>TRANSPEK INDUSTRY LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., VADODARA</h3> TRANSPEK INDUSTRY LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., VADODARA - 2007 (209) E.L.T. 366 (Tri. - Ahmd.) Issues involved:Demand of duty on goods returned to the factory under bond.Analysis:The case involved a dispute regarding the demand of duty on goods returned to the factory under bond. The appellant's foreign buyers rejected the goods due to quality issues, prompting the appellant to seek permission to bring back the exported consignment. The appellant informed the department about the need to repack the material due to quality concerns. The appellant argued that the department failed to verify the goods within the required timeframe, as stipulated under Rule 173M of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellant contended that since the goods were intact and available for verification, the demand for duty was unjustified. The appellant relied on a previous decision by the Tribunal in a similar case to support their position.The Revenue, represented by the Departmental Representative, maintained that the lower authorities correctly ordered the recovery of duty and imposed a penalty on the appellant. The Revenue argued that the appellant failed to provide timely intimation to the department upon the arrival of the container at the factory, which hindered proper verification by the departmental officers.After considering the arguments from both sides and examining the relevant provisions of Rule 173M, the Judge found that the proviso to Sub-clause (ii) of clause 1 of Rule 173M focused on verifying the particulars of the goods, not the container. The Judge noted that since the goods were available for verification and there was no evidence of diversion, the departmental officers' failure to verify the goods rendered the demand for duty unjustified. Consequently, the Judge ruled that the penalty was not warranted and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.
TaxTMI 