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 overturns duty and penalty on appellants for Rule 173Q violation, citing procedural flaws and lack of natural justice.</h1> <h3>ASAPCS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA</h3> ASAPCS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA - 1984 (18) E.L.T. 3 (Tribunal) Issues:1. Correctness of demand of duty and penalty for contravention of Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules.2. Interpretation of Notification No. 52/77-C.E. regarding exemption from duty for powered cycles.3. Compliance with principles of natural justice in the issuance of show cause notice and order.Analysis:Issue 1: Correctness of demand of duty and penaltyThe case involved a dispute over the demand of duty and penalty imposed on the appellants for alleged contravention of Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. The appellants, holding a L-4 Licence for manufacturing Motor Vehicles, claimed classification under T.I. No. 34 of the Central Excise Tariff and exemption from duty under Notification No. 52/77-C.E. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise alleged that the appellants were actually manufacturing Moped Model Jet & Rocket, not entitled to the claimed exemption. The appellants denied the allegations, arguing that their products fell within the definition of 'powered cycles' under the notification. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the show cause notice and the order, ultimately setting aside the demand of duty and penalty due to non-compliance with the principles of natural justice.Issue 2: Interpretation of Notification No. 52/77-C.E.The appellants contended that their products, being mopeds, qualified as 'powered cycles' under Notification No. 52/77-C.E., which exempted such cycles from excise duty. The appellants argued that the term 'moped' was not defined in the Excise Act or the Tariff and that their products could be pedalled if necessary, falling within the meaning of 'powered cycles.' The respondent, however, argued that the exemption applied only to ordinary bicycles and rickshaws, not to mopeds. The Tribunal did not delve into the classification of the products but found in favor of the appellants due to procedural irregularities and lack of compliance with natural justice principles.Issue 3: Compliance with principles of natural justiceThe Tribunal highlighted the failure to provide the appellants with access to crucial documents, specifically the literature mentioned in the show cause notice. Despite the appellants' request for inspection, the literature forming the basis of the allegations was not made available to them. This lack of access to essential information was deemed a violation of natural justice principles. Additionally, the order's reliance on factors not mentioned in the show cause notice, such as the type of tyres used and the shape of the vehicle, was considered improper. Citing precedents, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of a proper show cause notice outlining the basis for duty demand and penal action. As a result, the order of demand of duty and penalty was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved and the Tribunal's reasoning in arriving at its decision.
TaxTMI 