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 demand & penalties, citing incorrect duty calculation under different notifications.</h1> <h3>M/s. Dhanraj Industries & others Versus CCE Vapi</h3> The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's decision confirming duty demand and penalty imposition of Rs.5,97,578/- on the appellant for manufacturing hi-fi ... SSI exemption - Value of clearances - Concessional rate of duty - Notification No.8/99-CE dated 28.02.99 and Notification No.10/99-CE dated 28.02.99 - Appellant are engaged in the manufacture of hi-fi music system and air conditioners - In respect of music system, they were availing the benefit of concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No.8/99-CE dated 28.02.99 - The air conditioners were being cleared by them under the concession of Notification No.10/99-CE dated 28.02.99 - Held that:- as per the Tribunal's decision in the case of Noida Industrial Beltings Vs. CCE Noida [2004 -TMI - 53144 - CESTAT, NORTHERN BENCH, NEW DELHI], covered the issue in favour of the appellants and therefore for calculating the first clearances which are exempt, there is no need to take clearances under another notification into consideration and the restriction in para 3 of Notification No. 10/99 is not applicable - Similarly, the Notification No. 8/99 also has a similar condition - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:1. Confirmation of duty demand and penalty imposition.2. Availing concessional rate of duty for hi-fi music systems and air conditioners.3. Clubbing clearances under different notifications for duty exemption calculation.Confirmation of Duty Demand and Penalty Imposition:The judgment addresses the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in denovo proceedings, confirming the demand of duty amounting to Rs.5,97,578/- and imposing an identical penalty. After hearing both sides, it was noted that the appellant was engaged in manufacturing hi-fi music systems and air conditioners, availing the benefit of concessional duty rates under specific notifications. The duty was confirmed based on the clubbing of clearances under different notifications for calculating the value of first clearances entitled to full exemption. The Tribunal referred to its previous decision in the case of Noida Industrial Beltings, but also highlighted subsequent decisions favoring the appellant. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with consequential relief.Availing Concessional Rate of Duty for Hi-Fi Music Systems and Air Conditioners:The appellant was involved in the manufacture of hi-fi music systems and air conditioners, benefiting from concessional duty rates under Notification No.8/99-CE and Notification No.10/99-CE, respectively. These notifications provided concessions for small-scale units manufacturing these items. The issue arose when the duty was confirmed by clubbing clearances under both notifications for exemption calculation. The Tribunal found that the matter had been settled in the appellant's favor in a previous decision, emphasizing that subsequent decisions interpreting the notifications correctly favored the appellant. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and granting relief.Clubbing Clearances Under Different Notifications for Duty Exemption Calculation:The crux of the issue revolved around whether clearances under different notifications should be clubbed for calculating the value of first clearances entitled to full exemption. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the Tribunal's decision in the case of Noida Industrial Beltings, but the Tribunal noted that subsequent decisions favored the appellant's interpretation. The Tribunal highlighted that clearances under one notification did not need to be considered for calculating first clearances exempt from duty, as per the correct interpretation of the notifications. Given the consistent decisions in favor of the appellant and the correct interpretation of the notifications, the Tribunal did not find it necessary to refer the matter to a Larger Bench. As the issue had been decided in the same appellant's case, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and granted relief to the appellant.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
