Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- 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.
Issues: Whether waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery should be granted where rejected goods were received back, accounted for in the records, and the objection was only non-compliance with trade notices issued by Commissioners in other jurisdictions.
Analysis: Rule 16 permits duty-paid rejected goods to be brought back to the manufacturer's premises, provided the goods are accounted for and dealt with in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The dispute did not involve diversion or destruction of the returned goods, and the department did not dispute the sufficiency of the records maintained. The objection rested only on the alleged non-observance of trade notice procedures issued outside the appellant's jurisdiction, and no authority was shown for treating such notices as binding on assessees elsewhere. On these facts, a prima facie case for waiver was made out.
Conclusion: Waiver of the entire pre-deposit was granted and stay of recovery was ordered during pendency of the appeal.
Final Conclusion: Interim relief was allowed in the appellant's favour, but the appeal itself remained pending for final adjudication.
Ratio Decidendi: For waiver of pre-deposit, returned duty-paid goods that are duly accounted for cannot be disallowed merely because the assessee did not follow a trade notice issued by a Commissioner outside its jurisdiction.