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>Court grants title change, upholds penalty reversal, dismisses revenue appeal, emphasizing lack of evidence.</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Central Excise Chennai-III Versus Comstar Automotive Technologies Pvt. Ltd.</h3> Commissioner of Central Excise Chennai-III Versus Comstar Automotive Technologies Pvt. Ltd. - 2014 (313) E.L.T. 157 (Tri. - Chennai) Issues involved:1. Change of cause title application2. Appeal against penalty imposed on the respondent3. Duty liability on shortage in inventory4. Eligibility for exemption on imported components5. Payment of duty and interest before show cause notice6. Imposition of penalty under section 114A of the Customs Act7. Verification of delay in filing appeal before Commissioner (Appeals)8. Allegation of intention to evade payment of duty9. Contesting penalty imposition on wrong availment of notification10. Bonafide mistake in availing exemption under notification 2/95-CE11. Disclosure of information in books of accounts and suppression of facts12. Benefit of doubt to respondent regarding intent to evade paymentAnalysis:1. The judgment addresses the respondent's application for a change in cause title, allowing the change based on the submission of a fresh Certificate of Incorporation.2. The appeal by Revenue challenges the Commissioner (Appeals) order setting aside the penalty imposed on the respondent. Revenue contests the delay in filing the appeal and argues that the respondent did not verify the factual submission regarding the delay.3. The case involves duty liability on shortages in inventory found in the balance sheets of the respondent, who is a manufacturer of automotive components.4. The issue of eligibility for exemption under notification 2/95-CE arises concerning imported components cleared by the respondent. Revenue argues that proper procedures were not followed, leading to a demand for duty payment.5. The respondent paid the duty and interest amounts before the issuance of the show cause notice, which is highlighted in the judgment.6. The adjudicating officer confirmed the duty amount, interest, and imposed a penalty under section 114A of the Customs Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty, leading to the appeal by Revenue.7. The judgment discusses the verification of the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the discretion exercised by the Commissioner in condoning the delay.8. Revenue alleges the respondent's intention to evade payment of duty based on the delay in payment despite being aware of shortages in goods.9. The Ld AR argues that the respondent wrongfully availed exemption under notification 2/95-CE, and penalty imposition is justified for such actions.10. The respondent's advocate contests the penalty imposition, emphasizing that they are not challenging duty liability and interest but contesting the penalty.11. The judgment deliberates on the disclosure of information in books of accounts and whether it constitutes suppression of facts, especially regarding clearances as samples.12. Considering the manufacturing activity scale and the respondent's explanations, the judgment leans towards giving the benefit of doubt to the respondent regarding any intent to evade payment, leading to the dismissal of Revenue's appeal.This comprehensive analysis covers all the issues involved in the legal judgment, providing detailed insights into each aspect addressed in the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
