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 reduces appeal deposit from Rs. 1.3 crore to Rs. 20 lacs, balancing revenue concerns and appellant's circumstances.</h1> <h3>SURYA POLYPACK PVT. LTD. Versus CESTAT, NEW DELHI</h3> The High Court modified the Tribunal's order, reducing the deposit amount required for hearing the appeal from Rs. 1 crore 30 lacs to Rs. 20 lacs. The ... Delay in filing declaration - whether filing of the Notification in the instant case was only a procedural matter or the same gave a substantial right under the Notification dated 10th June, 2003 - Held that:- Claim in the instant case is of Rs. 1 crore 30 lacs, whereas even now goods are being cleared by taking advantage of the Notification dated 10th June, 2003, it would be appropriate on the part of the Tribunal to permit the appeal to be heard on deposit of Rs. 20 lacs. We, accordingly, modify the order of the Tribunal to that effect - Decided partly in favour of assessee. Issues:1. Interpretation of Notification dated 10th June, 2003 regarding excise duty exemption.2. Whether filing of the Notification was a procedural matter or granted a substantial right.3. Appellant's delay in filing the declaration and its impact on excise duty liability.4. Tribunal's order of depositing Rs. 1 crore 30 lacs for hearing the appeal.Analysis:1. The case revolves around the interpretation of the Notification dated 10th June, 2003, concerning excise duty exemption. The Excise Department argues that clearances made before the declaration was filed are not exempted under the said Notification, leading to the imposition of excise duty on goods cleared pre-declaration. The central issue is whether the filing of the Notification was merely procedural or conferred a substantive right under the Notification.2. The Tribunal's order, requiring the appellant to deposit Rs. 1 crore 30 lacs as a condition for hearing the appeal, was modified by the High Court. Given the substantial amount involved and ongoing clearances under the Notification, the Court deemed it appropriate to allow the appeal to proceed on depositing Rs. 20 lacs instead. The Court emphasized the need for expeditious hearing due to revenue recovery concerns.3. The appellant cited a delay in filing the declaration, attributing it to unawareness of the Notification dated 5th November, 2003 until the declaration was submitted. This delay impacted the excise duty liability on goods cleared before the filing. The Court's decision to reduce the deposit amount acknowledges the appellant's circumstances while balancing the revenue implications.4. Ultimately, the High Court disposed of the appeal, modifying the Tribunal's order and allowing the case to proceed on a reduced deposit amount. The Court's directive to expedite the hearing underscores the significance of resolving the matter promptly, considering the revenue recovery at stake.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
