1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>CESTAT directs deposit of 25% confirmed duty for manufacturing excisable goods</h1> The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI directed the applicants, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, to deposit 25% of the confirmed duty within six ... Clandestine removal of goods for export - Intimation through D3 not being made by assessee on goods when received back - Waiver of Pre-deposit β Held that:- The applicant had not followed the procedure in respect of the manufactured goods received in the factory βThus, the applicants failed to make out a case for total waiver of amount - The applicants are directed to deposit 25% of the amount as pre-deposit β upon such submission rest of the duty to be stayed till the disposal β partial stay granted. Issues: Application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalty due to non-export of goods.In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, the issue revolved around an application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalty amounting to Rs. 1,33,024. The applicants, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, had cleared a certain quantity of goods for export but failed to export them, claiming that the goods were received in the factory. The Revenue demanded duty for the goods cleared for export but not exported. The applicants argued that they provided evidence of receiving the goods in the factory and even transportation evidence from the port. They contended that since the goods were received in the factory and subsequently cleared on payment of duty, the demand was not justified.The Revenue, however, pointed out that although the goods were received in the factory on 10.07.2010, the intimation of receipt was filed on 27.08.2010, contrary to the required procedure of filing D3 intimation within 24 hours of receipt and storing the goods separately for verification for at least 48 hours. The delay in filing the intimation led the Revenue to assert that the demand was valid. The Tribunal observed that the applicants had not followed the proper procedure for goods received in the factory, which weakened their case for a total waiver of pre-deposit. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the applicants to deposit 25% of the confirmed duty within six weeks and report compliance by 06.05.2013. Upon this deposit, the pre-deposit of the remaining dues would be waived, and recovery stayed during the appeal's pendency.