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>Appellate Court Upholds Duty Payment Decision</h1> The appellate court upheld the authorities' decision requiring payment of the demanded duty amount, interest, and penalty due to the appellants' ... - Issues:Challenge to order for payment of differential duty, denial of exemption under Notification No. 05/2006-C.E. due to non-compliance with conditions.Analysis:The appellants contested an order requiring payment of differential duty, interest, and penalty. The dispute revolved around the denial of exemption under Notification No. 05/2006-C.E. The authorities alleged non-compliance with condition 3 of the notification along with Trade Notice No. 40/97-C.E. The appellants argued that the trade notice was not in effect at the relevant time as per Rule 33 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. They also contended that the notification did not mandate information submission in the manner specified in the trade notice.The Notification No. 05/2006-C.E. outlined conditions for an 8% ad valorem duty on goods using fly-ash or phosphogypsum. Condition 3 required maintaining proper accounts and filing monthly returns as specified by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The Trade Notice No. 40/97-C.E. mandated daily raw material accounts, monthly returns, and immediate intimation upon receipt of specified goods. Rule 33 validated notifications consistent with the Central Excise Rules, 2002, unless inconsistent. The appellants failed to demonstrate any inconsistency between the rules and the trade notice, rendering the notice enforceable.Regarding the filing of returns, it was emphasized that compliance was not discretionary and must align with legal provisions for effective oversight by excise authorities. The necessity of timely and accurate returns was underscored to ensure proper regulation. Consequently, the authorities' findings on this matter were upheld. Despite no indication of financial hardship, the appellants were directed to deposit the demanded duty amount within eight weeks, with interest and penalty waived pending appeal. This decision aimed to balance the interests of both parties, considering the circumstances of the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
