Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, on a prima facie view, the motor vehicles cleared by the appellants were classifiable under Heading 8702.10 and attracted National Calamity Contingent Duty, and whether pre-deposit of the duty demand should be ordered.
Analysis: The dispute turned on the passenger capacity of the vehicles cleared during the relevant period. A job-work statement relied on by the appellants was insufficient to establish the claimed passenger capacity. The certificates issued by the Regional Transport Office and the statements of the appellants' own functionaries supported the departmental case that the vehicles had passenger capacity of 13, and not more than 16. On that material, the view was that the appellants had not made out a strong prima facie case against duty liability.
Conclusion: The appellants were required to pre-deposit the duty amount within the stipulated time, and waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery were granted only in respect of the penalty upon compliance.
Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of interim relief, a self-serving job-work statement cannot prevail over contemporaneous official records and the assessee's own statements when determining prima facie classification and duty liability.