We've upgraded AI Tools on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:
1. Basic • Quick overview summary answering your query with references• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
2. Advanced • Includes everything in Basic • Detailed report covering: - Overview Summary - Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars] - Relevant Case Laws - Tariff / Classification / HSN - Expert views from TaxTMI - Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy
• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
CESTAT directs deposit of 25% confirmed duty for manufacturing excisable goods The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI directed the applicants, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, to deposit 25% of the confirmed duty within six ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
CESTAT directs deposit of 25% confirmed duty for manufacturing excisable goods
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI directed the applicants, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, 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. This decision was made due to the applicants' failure to follow the proper procedure for goods received in the factory, which weakened their case for a total waiver of pre-deposit.
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.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
