Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>Appeal delay condoned; duty & penalty waived based on revenue-neutrality precedent.</h1> The delay in filing the appeal was condoned due to a satisfactory explanation provided by the appellant. The demand of duty and penalty imposed on the ... Differential amount of duty - Addition of value of materials supplied free of cost - Waiver of Pre-deposit – Held that:- Waiver and stay were granted on the basis of revenue-neutrality - there is nothing on record to indicate that the Stay Order was not accepted by the department – Pre-deposits waived till the disposal – Stay granted. Issues:1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal2. Demand of duty and penalty imposed3. Application for waiver and stay against adjudged duesCondonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:The appellant filed two applications, one for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal and the other seeking waiver and stay against the adjudged dues. The delay of 12 days in filing the appeal was satisfactorily explained, leading to the allowance of the COD application.Demand of Duty and Penalty Imposed:A lower authority demanded a differential amount of duty and imposed a penalty on the appellant. The duty was demanded due to the addition of the value of materials supplied free of cost to the appellant by the buyer of the final product. The facts of the case were found to be similar to an earlier case of the same assessee considered by the bench in a Stay Order. As the earlier Stay Order was based on revenue-neutrality and there was no indication of non-acceptance by the department, waiver and stay were granted in the instant case as well.Application for Waiver and Stay Against Adjudged Dues:The tribunal granted waiver and stay against the adjudged dues in the instant case, similar to a previous case involving the same assessee. The decision was based on the factual parity between the cases and the acceptance of the earlier Stay Order by the department. The stay application was allowed, concluding the judgment pronounced and dictated in open court.