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 and established financial hardship for waiver of pre-deposit in respect of the duty, interest and penalty confirmed while denying exemption under Notification No. 49/03-C.E. dated 10-6-2006.
Analysis: The exemption was available only to units existing before 7 January 2003 that had undertaken substantial expansion by increasing installed capacity by at least 25% on or after that date. On the material placed, the appellants' own letters to the financial corporation showed that the modernization and expansion project had commenced much earlier and was already in progress before January 2003. The balance sheet, production figures, invoices and correspondence also supported the view that the expansion activity was not shown to have commenced on or after 7 January 2003. As to financial hardship, the record did not establish present inability to comply with a pre-deposit order, particularly when production and capacity had continued to increase.
Conclusion: The appellants were not entitled to complete waiver of pre-deposit, but were granted partial relief by waiver of interest and penalty and 40% of the duty, with a direction to deposit 60% of the duty amount.