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 Grants Waiver of Pre-Deposit under Notification No. 83/94-C.E.</h1> <h3>SAURASHTRA ENGINEERING CORPN. PVT. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., MUMBAI-II</h3> SAURASHTRA ENGINEERING CORPN. PVT. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., MUMBAI-II - 2012 (278) E.L.T. 610 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:Waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalty under Notification No. 83/94-C.E. dated 11-4-1994.Analysis:The applicant filed an application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 1,10,976, interest, and penalty. The demand was confirmed by denying the benefit of Notification No. 83/94-C.E. on the basis that the necessary undertaking by the principle supplier was not filed, and the applicant manufactured goods on a job work basis. The applicant argued that the Notification does not impose an obligation on the job worker to file an undertaking, and they cleared goods only charging labor charges. The Revenue, however, relied on the lower authority's findings to support the denial of the notification's benefit, emphasizing the need to fulfill the conditions laid down in the Notification.Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal noted that as per the provisions of Notification No. 83/94-C.E., the supplier of raw material is required to file an undertaking, while there is no such obligation on the job worker. Given this interpretation, the Tribunal found that the applicant, being a job worker, had made a strong prima facie case. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to waive the pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalty, and stayed the recovery during the pendency of the appeal, thereby allowing the stay petition.In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision hinged on the interpretation of the Notification's requirements, specifically the distinction between the obligations of the supplier of raw material and the job worker. By clarifying that the job worker was not mandated to file an undertaking as per the Notification, the Tribunal granted the applicant's request for waiver and stay of recovery, emphasizing the absence of such a requirement for job workers in the said Notification.
TaxTMI 