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, on a prima facie view, the assessee could discharge duty on returned inputs by utilising accumulated CENVAT credit and whether recovery of the balance demand should be stayed pending compliance with a conditional deposit order.
Analysis: The goods in dispute were inputs originally cleared by the supplier without payment of excise duty, and no CENVAT credit had been taken at that stage by the assessee. The Tribunal held that, in such circumstances, the assessee was not the manufacturer of the goods in dispute and it appeared prima facie that there was no necessity to pay duty on the return of the goods to the original supplier. It also noted the contention regarding the earlier Tribunal view cited by the assessee and considered the overall facts of the case before granting interim relief.
Conclusion: The assessee was directed to deposit 7.5% of the duty demanded in cash within eight weeks, and recovery of the balance duty, interest and penalty was stayed on such compliance.