TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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 Upholds Duty Demand Order, Emphasizes Compliance</h1> The Tribunal dismissed the appellants' challenge to the order confirming a demand of Rs. 4,09,404/- along with interest by the Commissioner, Jaipur, ... - Issues:Challenge to order confirming demand and denial of exemption under Notification No. 4/2006-C.E.Analysis:The appellants, engaged in cement manufacturing, challenged the order confirming a demand of Rs. 4,09,404/- along with interest by the Commissioner, Jaipur. The dispute centered around the denial of exemption claimed under Notification No. 4/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-06. The appellants sought exemption based on the notification's provisions, paying duty at a specific rate per metric ton plus cess for cement sold to industrial/institutional consumers.The appellants contended that the Commissioner failed to correctly interpret the notification, specifically the third proviso to Explanation II concerning goods falling under Chapter Heading 2523.29. They argued that since they sold goods in large quantities, the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977, pertaining to retail sales, did not apply. They claimed there was no need to disclose wholesale commodity prices due to the exemption they believed applied.However, the respondents, represented by the learned DR, opposed the appellants' arguments. They highlighted that the Weights and Measures Rules applied not only to retail but also wholesale transactions. Rule 6 of the Rules mandated declarations on packages intended for retail sale, including a declaration of the retail sale price on each package. The definition of a wholesale package encompassed retail packages, necessitating compliance with retail price disclosure requirements.The Tribunal observed that the exemption under the notification's proviso applied specifically to exemptions provided under the Rules. As such, the waiver of the demanded amount was not warranted based on the arguments presented by the appellants. The Tribunal dismissed the application for stay, directing the appellants to deposit the amount as per the impugned order within eight weeks.The matter was scheduled for compliance on 20-11-09, with the Tribunal's decision emphasizing the necessity of adhering to the regulatory requirements and the limited scope of exemptions under the relevant Rules in determining duty liabilities.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
