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 waives duty pre-deposit exceeding denied credit, grants stay on recovery</h1> <h3>ANUTONE ACOUSTICS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE</h3> ANUTONE ACOUSTICS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE - TMI Issues:Waiver of pre-deposit of duty, credit availed by the applicant, activity undertaken by the applicant, manufacture, payment of duty through PLA, objection by Revenue, stay of recovery during appeal.Analysis:1. Waiver of Pre-deposit of Duty:The applicant filed an application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 1,14,33,192/-, interest, and penalty. The demand was confirmed on the basis that the applicant wrongly availed credit as the activity undertaken did not amount to manufacture.2. Activity Undertaken by the Applicant:During the disputed period, the applicant availed credit and cleared goods by utilizing the credit and paying through PLA. An amount of Rs. 16,04,778/- was paid from PLA towards duty for the cleared goods. The applicant contended that the activity undertaken at various places outside Mumbai amounts to manufacture, and the Revenue did not object to the availing of credit and payment of duty.3. Manufacture and Credit Availed:The Tribunal found that the duty paid by the applicant exceeded the credit being denied, and the Revenue had accepted the duty payment. Therefore, the credit could not be denied on the grounds that the activity did not amount to manufacture. The Tribunal held that the applicant had a strong case in their favor, leading to the waiver of pre-deposit of dues and a stay on recovery during the appeal process.4. Revenue's Objection and Stay of Recovery:Despite the Revenue not objecting to the activity undertaken by the applicant in availing credit and paying duty, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the applicant based on the duty payment exceeding the denied credit. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the stay petition, waiving the pre-deposit of dues and halting the recovery process during the pendency of the appeal.In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment favored the applicant by granting a waiver of pre-deposit of duty and staying the recovery process during the appeal, emphasizing that the duty payment made by the applicant exceeded the credit being denied, and the Revenue had accepted the duty payment despite the nature of the activity undertaken by the applicant.
TaxTMI 