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 orders payment of duty with interest and penalty, grants stay on demand</h1> <h3>SWATI MENTHOL & ALLIED CHEM. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF CUS. & C. EX., MEERUT-II</h3> The appellate tribunal directed the appellant to pay the rejected remission of duty application amounting to Rs. 1,37,29,232/- along with interest and ... Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit Issues:1. Rejection of remission of duty application2. Destruction of goods due to fire in the factory3. Controversy regarding negligence leading to the fire4. Interpretation of duty liability for goods in the process of manufacture5. Grant of stay on the impugned demandAnalysis:1. The appellate tribunal, in the present case, dealt with the rejection of the remission of duty application amounting to Rs. 1,37,29,232/- against the appellant. The tribunal directed the appellant to pay the said amount along with interest and an equal penalty, as per the impugned order.2. The undisputed facts revealed that goods produced by the appellant, including menthol powder and de-menthol, were destroyed due to a fire in the factory. The controversy arose regarding whether the fire resulted from negligence on the part of the appellant. It was noted that insurance was claimed and cleared by the insurance company following the mishap.3. The appellant contended that the goods were in the process of manufacture and had not reached the stage of being marketable, thus absolving them of duty liability. However, the authority rejected this argument, citing relevant provisions from the Central Excise Tariff Act. The tribunal observed that the order did not address whether the goods had reached a marketable stage, raising a prima facie case for granting a stay on the demand.4. Considering that the goods were already destroyed and the main issue of marketability was not conclusively addressed, the tribunal found no prejudice to the Revenue's interest. Imposing the duty demand would result in an unwarranted financial burden on the appellant. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the application for a stay, waiving the demanded amount until the appeal's disposal.5. In conclusion, the tribunal granted a stay on the impugned demand, allowing the appeal to be listed for further hearings. The stay application was disposed of accordingly, providing temporary relief to the appellant pending the appeal's resolution.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
