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 Tribunal was justified in directing the assessee to deposit Rs. 1 crore as a condition for hearing the appeal, on the premise that sending imported billets to a job worker for conversion amounted to a prohibited transfer under the exemption notifications.
Analysis: The available materials indicated, prima facie, that the import notifications did not bar a manufacturer-exporter from getting imported raw materials converted through a job worker. A public notice issued by the foreign trade authorities under a similar scheme recognized conversion through a job worker and treated only sale of the imported raw materials before conversion as a violation of the actual user condition. The record also showed that the goods were sold after conversion, not before. Further, the notification language dealing with supporting manufacturers in the case of a merchant exporter did not justify an inference that a manufacturer-exporter was prohibited from using a job worker or supporting manufacturer. The Tribunal's assumption that there was no provision permitting such conversion was therefore not sustainable at the pre-deposit stage.
Conclusion: The pre-deposit order was not justified and was set aside; the appeal before the Tribunal was directed to be heard on merits without insisting on pre-deposit.