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 upholds ruling in favor of respondent on duty forgone under Notification No. 203/92-Cus.</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXP.), MUMBAI Versus SUDHA INDUSTRIES CO.</h3> The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, ruling in favor of the respondent regarding duty forgone under Notification No. 203/92-Cus. The respondent's ... Demand - Advance licence - Notification No. 203/92-Cus., dated 19-5-1992 - DEEC scheme - Reversal of MODVAT credit - the appellant has not categorically stated so in the grounds of the appeal, they purport to say that, unless the amount of Rs. 87,158/- was reversed by the respondent in their MODVAT account and interest thereon paid within the prescribed period, the benefit of the amnesty scheme would not be admissible to them - It is submitted that such reversal of credit was done in terms of a clarificatory circular issued by the Board, viz. Circular No. 318/34/97-CX. dated 26-6-1997 - such a certificate of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Div. III, Surat, which certifies thus “It is certified that the particulars of MODVAT amount reversed/debited and the amount paid as per the details shown in this statement are true and correct. The referred amount reversed in terms of Public Notice No. 9/97 - Appeal is dismissed Issues:Whether duty forgone under Notification No. 203/92-Cus. should be paid by the respondent.Detailed Analysis:1. Issue of Duty Forgone Under Notification:- The appeal by the Revenue questioned if the respondent must pay the duty forgone under Notification No. 203/92-Cus. for raw material imported under the DEEC scheme.- The department alleged a breach of condition No. v (a) of the Notification due to availing input-stage credit for exported finished goods, proposing duty recovery, interest, confiscation, and penalty.- The Commissioner of Customs dropped these proposals after the respondent reversed MODVAT credit and paid interest as certified by Central Excise authorities.- The Revenue contended that the entire MODVAT credit was not reversed, thus challenging the respondent's eligibility for the amnesty scheme.- The respondent argued they had reversed the full MODVAT credit based on Circular No. 318/34/97-CX and a previous judgment discussing the amnesty scheme.- A certificate from the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed the reversal of MODVAT credit as per the public notice.2. Judgment and Conclusion:- The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, stating that the respondent's reversal of MODVAT credit was in compliance with the relevant circular and public notice.- Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the decision in favor of the respondent.This detailed analysis covers the issues surrounding the duty forgone under Notification No. 203/92-Cus., the alleged breach of conditions, the reversal of MODVAT credit, and the eligibility for the amnesty scheme, leading to the final judgment by the Tribunal in favor of the respondent.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
