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 Grants Stay on Duty Order, Emphasizes Scope Adherence</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-I Versus L’OREAL INDIA PVT. LTD.</h3> COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-I Versus L’OREAL INDIA PVT. LTD. - 2014 (312) E.L.T. 649 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:Stay of operation of impugned order, Allegations in show cause notice, Assessment under Section 4 and Section 4A of Central Excise Act, Framing of issues by adjudicating authority, Misconception of facts in Commissioner's order, Stay application by Revenue, Stay orders of the Tribunal, Final disposal of appeal.Detailed Analysis:1. Stay of Operation of Impugned Order:The department sought a stay of the impugned order where the Commissioner dropped the demand of differential duty raised in the show cause notice on the respondent. The appellant argued that the order was based on a wrong premise and beyond the scope of the show cause notice. The JCDR submitted a strong prima facie case for the Revenue citing the judgment in Jayanti Food Processing (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E., Rajasthan. The JCDR highlighted discrepancies between the impugned order and the show cause notice, advocating for a remand to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication within the notice's parameters.2. Assessment under Section 4 and Section 4A of Central Excise Act:The show cause notice alleged that the respondent was required to pay excise duty on goods sold through dealers to salons and consumed by them, not meeting the requirements for assessment under Section 4A. The Commissioner's order combined technical professional products and retail products for duty levy under Section 4, contrary to the focus of the show cause notice solely on technical products. The Commissioner's conclusion dropped the duty demand, seemingly based on a misconception of facts, leading to the stay granted by the Tribunal.3. Framing of Issues by Adjudicating Authority:The adjudicating authority framed issues questioning whether technical and retail products could be assessed under Section 4 or Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. By doing so, the authority seemed to assume duty levy on both types of products, deviating from the show cause notice's scope. The Commissioner's interpretation of legal provisions and application thereof was found erroneous, leading to the stay order.4. Misconception of Facts in Commissioner's Order:The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner's order was based on a wrong conception of facts, deviating from the show cause notice's allegations and proposals. The order was considered to be based on a mistaken understanding of the case, which is impermissible for an adjudicating authority. This misconception led to the stay being granted to prevent further erroneous conclusions.5. Stay Application by Revenue and Tribunal's Decision:The Tribunal found sufficient grounds to stay the Commissioner's order due to the manifestly wrong conception of facts. Previous stay orders cited did not support the respondent's argument, as the Commissioner's order was deemed to be based on a flawed premise. The Tribunal allowed the application for stay until the final disposal of the appeal, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the scope of the show cause notice in adjudication.6. Final Disposal of Appeal:The Tribunal directed the appeal to be listed for out-of-turn hearing and granted additional time for the respondent to file cross-objections. The final disposal of the appeal was pending, with the operation of the impugned order stayed until further proceedings.This detailed analysis covers the key issues addressed in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the Tribunal's decision and the arguments presented by both parties.
TaxTMI 