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 overturns decision on optical fibres, ruling they don't qualify as accessories</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS (LTU) Versus M/s STARLITE INDS (I) LTD</h3> COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS (LTU) Versus M/s STARLITE INDS (I) LTD - 2014 (304) E.L.T. 111 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues Involved:1. Benefit of Notification No.10/97-CE dated 1.3.97 in respect of optical fibres and optical cables.2. Production of necessary certificate as per the conditions of the notification.3. Time-barred demand and suppression of material facts.4. Compliance with conditions of the Notification.5. Classification of optical fibres and cables as accessories or spare parts.Issue 1: Benefit of Notification No.10/97-CEThe Revenue appealed against the Commissioner (Appeals) order granting the benefit of Notification No.10/97-CE for optical fibres and cables. The Revenue argued that the necessary certificate was produced after the show-cause notice, not by the required authority. They contended that the cables, running up to 88 kms, did not qualify as accessories or spare parts under the Notification. The Revenue also cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Eagle Flask Industries Limited vs. CCE, Pune 2004 to support their position.Issue 2: Production of Necessary CertificateThe respondents claimed that the certificate was produced after the show-cause notice was issued, stating that the cables were for a turn-key solution. They argued that even though the certificate was late, the benefit of the Notification should not be denied. The respondents also raised the issue of the demand being time-barred and refuted the allegation of suppression of facts.Issue 3: Time-barred Demand and SuppressionThe respondents applied for the certificate after receiving the show-cause notice. They relied on a Tribunal decision where the benefit of a similar Notification was allowed despite the late production of the certificate. However, the Tribunal found that the respondents had not applied for the necessary certificate at the time of clearance, and thus, suppressed material facts. Consequently, the demand was not considered time-barred.Issue 4: Compliance with Notification ConditionsThe Tribunal emphasized strict compliance with the Notification conditions, noting that the necessary certificate should have been produced at the time of clearance. As the certificate was applied for after the investigation began, the benefit of the Notification was rightly denied. The Tribunal highlighted that the optical fibres and cables did not qualify as accessories or spare parts under the Notification.Issue 5: Classification of Optical Fibres and CablesThe Tribunal upheld the Revenue's appeal, citing the Supreme Court's stance on strict compliance with Notification conditions. The Tribunal concluded that the optical fibres and cables, running over 88 kms, did not fall under the category of accessories or spare parts specified in the Notification. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the department's appeal was allowed.This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the key issues involved in the legal dispute regarding the benefit of Notification No.10/97-CE for optical fibres and cables, highlighting the arguments presented by both parties and the Tribunal's reasoning in arriving at its decision.
TaxTMI 