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>Appellate ruling on duty for aluminium waste clearance under Rule 57F(2) emphasizes vested rights & jurisdictional limits. (2)</h1> <h3>In re : CHANVIM ENGG. (I) (P) LTD.</h3> The appellate authority allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand for duty on the clearance of aluminium waste and scrap under Rule 57F(2). The ... - Issues:1. Demand for duty on clearance of aluminium waste and scrap under Rule 57F(2).2. Granting of permission for removal of waste and scrap under Rule 57F(2) and subsequent withdrawal of permission.3. Jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector to adjudicate a demand exceeding a specified amount.Analysis:Issue 1: Demand for duty on clearance of aluminium waste and scrap under Rule 57F(2)The appellant, engaged in manufacturing Aluminium Roll Bond Panel, sought permission under Rule 57F(2) to remove waste and scrap generated during the manufacturing process for conversion into aluminium sheets. The Assistant Collector demanded duty on the clearance of waste and scrap, contending that Rule 57F(2) did not cover such removal as the waste was not considered input or semi-finished goods eligible for clearance under the rule. The Assistant Collector confirmed the demand, leading to the subject appeal.Issue 2: Granting of permission for removal of waste and scrap under Rule 57F(2) and subsequent withdrawal of permissionThe appellant argued that they were granted permission by the Assistant Collector to clear aluminium waste and scrap under Rule 57F(2) on 6th March, 1992. They highlighted that similar permissions were granted to other entities as well. However, the permission was later withdrawn through a Trade Notice dated 9-2-1993. The appellant contended that since the removal of waste and scrap occurred when the permission was valid, the demand for duty was unjustified. The appellate authority agreed with the appellant, emphasizing that non-statutory orders like the Trade Notice operate prospectively and cannot divest vested rights retrospectively.Issue 3: Jurisdiction of the Assistant CollectorThe appellate authority also noted a lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Assistant Collector to adjudicate a demand exceeding a specified amount, as per Board's instructions. The Assistant Collector's order was found to be deficient in this regard, as the demand exceeded the monetary limits applicable to the Assistant Collector's authority. Therefore, the impugned order was unsustainable on this ground as well.In conclusion, the appellate authority allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand for duty on the clearance of aluminium waste and scrap under Rule 57F(2). The judgment emphasized the importance of vested rights, the prospective operation of non-statutory orders, and the jurisdictional limitations of the Assistant Collector in adjudicating demands exceeding specified amounts.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
