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>CESTAT Chennai: Appellants Win Appeal Against Unjustified Tax Demand</h1> <h3>SRI RANGAVILAS GINNING, S. & W. MILLS Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., COIMBATORE</h3> SRI RANGAVILAS GINNING, S. & W. MILLS Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., COIMBATORE - 2012 (278) E.L.T. 381 (Tri. - Chennai) Issues:1. Delay in processing credit for differential duty.2. Failure to provide assessed copies of RT-12 returns.3. Demand notice for availed credit without valid documents.4. Unjustified demand notice and orders.Analysis:Issue 1: Delay in processing credit for differential dutyThe appellants had intimated the jurisdictional Superintendent about the pending differential duty through multiple letters. Despite repeated requests and follow-ups, the department failed to process the credit, leading the appellants to take credit on their own on 21-12-1999. The officials did not assess the relevant returns submitted by the appellants, even after the returns were traced out by sending a person to the Range Office. The delay in processing the credit was a result of the department's inaction.Issue 2: Failure to provide assessed copies of RT-12 returnsThe appellants highlighted the non-receipt of RT-12 assessed copies duly countersigned by the Superintendent of Central Excise as the reason for the pending issue. The failure of the department to provide these assessed copies hindered the appellants from taking credit of the differential duty, despite their repeated requests and efforts to resolve the matter.Issue 3: Demand notice for availed credit without valid documentsThe department issued a show-cause notice on 4-5-2000, demanding the impugned amount from the appellants. The notice alleged that the appellants availed credit without valid documents, even though they were entitled to take credit of the excess duty paid by them as per Rule 173 I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. This demand notice was based on the department's assertion that the appellants did not have valid documents to support the credit availed.Issue 4: Unjustified demand notice and ordersThe Tribunal found that the demand notice and subsequent orders issued by the authorities were unjustified. The department failed to provide any documents or evidence to prove that the appellants were not entitled to the credit of the impugned amount. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants, highlighting the lack of justification for the demand notice and orders issued by the authorities.In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai highlighted the issues of delay in processing credit, failure to provide assessed copies of returns, unjustified demand notice, and orders. The decision favored the appellants, emphasizing the department's lack of action and evidence to support their demand for the availed credit without valid documents.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
