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 affirms Commissioner's order on duty payment timelines and dismissal of Revenue's challenges</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., RAIPUR Versus JAI AMBEY METAL WORKS PVT. LTD.</h3> COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., RAIPUR Versus JAI AMBEY METAL WORKS PVT. LTD. - 2013 (295) E.L.T. 453 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:1. Challenge to impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals)2. Completion of proceedings under Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 19443. Allegation of clandestine clearance and denial of cum-duty benefitAnalysis:Issue 1: Challenge to impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals)The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) where it was held that the respondent had paid the full duty demanded in the show cause notice along with interest and penalty within the stipulated period. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the proceedings contemplated in the show cause notice were concluded. The Revenue challenged this order on the grounds of incomplete proceedings under Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the allegation of clandestine clearance.Issue 2: Completion of proceedings under Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944The main contention of the Revenue was that the proceedings under Section 11A(2) were not concluded. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that duty, interest, and 25% of the penalty had been paid within the stipulated period under Section 11AC of the Act, 1944. This finding was not challenged in the appeal. The Tribunal's decision in a similar case against another individual involved in the same show cause notice also supported the conclusion that the proceedings were to be treated as closed. Therefore, the argument of the Revenue regarding the non-conclusion of proceedings under Section 11A(2) was dismissed.Issue 3: Allegation of clandestine clearance and denial of cum-duty benefitThe Revenue also challenged the impugned order on the grounds of alleged clandestine clearance and denial of cum-duty benefit to the respondents. However, it was found that duty had been confirmed against the respondent, entitling them to cum-duty benefit as established in a previous Supreme Court case. Consequently, the appeal was found to lack merit and was dismissed accordingly.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order, finding that the duty, interest, and penalty had been paid within the required period, leading to the conclusion that the proceedings under Section 11A(2) were closed. Additionally, the respondents were entitled to cum-duty benefit as per legal precedent, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal filed by the Revenue.
TaxTMI 