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 emphasizes fair process in bond enforcement, orders reconsideration</h1> <h3>STANDARD INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SURAT</h3> STANDARD INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SURAT - 2009 (243) E.L.T. 458 (Tri. - Ahmd.) Issues involved:Rectification of mistake in the order of the Tribunal regarding enforcement of bond without relevant details and duty liability under Notification No. 33/90.Analysis:The judgment involves an application for the rectification of a mistake in the order of the Tribunal related to two appeals. The first appeal concerns the enforcement of a bond without providing relevant details and an opportunity to defend the case. The second appeal pertains to the duty liability arising under Notification No. 33/90, as the appellants obtained excisable goods without paying duty and failed to account for them. The Tribunal initially held that duty was not demandable under Rule 9(2) since the appellant was not a manufacturer. However, it ordered the enforcement of the bond in accordance with the law. The appellant argued that the lower authorities' appropriation of the amount due from the refund sanctioned to them was invalid. The Tribunal did not make any observations regarding the second appeal.The learned advocate representing the appellant contended that the Tribunal's decision necessitates the adjudicating authority to provide details of the bonds enforced and allow the appellant an opportunity to respond before deciding on the enforcement of the bond. Consequently, the order for appropriation of the refund amount towards the enforcement of the bond was set aside, and the original adjudicating authority was directed to reconsider the issue of appropriation afresh. The Tribunal agreed with the advocate's submission and modified the order by adding a specific paragraph to address the issue raised by the appellant.In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of providing relevant details and opportunities for defense in cases involving enforcement of bonds and duty liabilities. It underscores the need for a fair and transparent process in determining the appropriation of amounts due from refunds, emphasizing the rights of appellants to a proper hearing and decision-making process by the adjudicating authorities.
TaxTMI 