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 the appellants had made out a prima facie case against the demand of duty and the penalties, whether the plea of limitation based on alleged disclosure to the department was available, and whether waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery could be granted.
Analysis: The demand arose from inclusion of development charges and film charges in the assessable value of unpopulated PCBs. The appellants relied on earlier correspondence and on their own valuation figures to contest the demand on merits, but the records showed that the assessee itself had proposed the relevant per sq. cm. values before the adjudicating authority and those figures were adopted for quantification. On limitation, the earlier letter to the department was found not to disclose the crucial fact that the cost of design and drawing used for manufacture of the goods was omitted from the assessable value, and the suppression plea was therefore not accepted at the interim stage. The material placed before the Tribunal thus favoured the Revenue for the purpose of stay.
Conclusion: No prima facie case was made out for full waiver. The appellant-company was directed to pre-deposit Rs. 44,92,455 within four weeks, and only on compliance would waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery operate for the penalties.