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 Orders Rs. 20.00 Lakhs Deposit for Waiver, Stay on Recovery</h1> <h3>M/s Ceebuild Co Pvt Ltd, Shri Sanjiv Kabra Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Haldia</h3> The Tribunal directed the applicant to deposit Rs. 20.00 Lakhs within eight weeks, leading to a waiver of balance dues against the applicant and all dues ... Waiver of pre deposit - revenue contended that applicant was not a manufacturer of the goods supplied to the power corporations but got it manufactured from various job workers. - Imposition of penalty - Held that:- Issues involved in the present case are more or less comparable to the facts and circumstances involved in M/s. S.A. Enterprise case (2015 (10) TMI 1349 - CESTAT KOLKATA). In these circumstances, considering that the applicant had deposited ₹ 5.00 laks during adjudication, the offer to deposit further ₹ 20.00 Lakhs seems to be reasonable at this stage. Consequently, the appellant (1) M/s. Ceebuild Co. Pvt. Ltd. is directed to deposit ₹ 20.00 Lakhs within a period of eight weeks and report compliance on 26/10/2015. On deposit of the said amount, balance dues adjudged against M/s. Ceebuild Co. Pvt. Ltd. and all dues adjudged against Sanjiv Kabra are waived and its recovery stayed during the pendency of the appeals - partial Stay granted. Issues:- Waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty- Classification of the applicant as a manufacturer- Comparison with a previous case involving similar circumstancesWaiver of Pre-deposit of Duty and Penalty:The case involved applications seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 6.83 Crores and penalty of equal amount, along with personal penalty on an individual and a penalty under Rule 25(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Ld. Consultant argued that the applicant was not the manufacturer of the goods supplied to power corporations but had them manufactured by job workers. Referring to a previous case, the Ld. Consultant offered to deposit an additional amount of Rs. 20.00 Lakhs on top of the Rs. 5.00 Lakhs already deposited during adjudication.Classification of the Applicant as a Manufacturer:The Ld. Consultant contended that the applicant had declared themselves as a manufacturer in order to qualify for tenders from State Power Corporations, even though they got the goods manufactured from job workers. The Tribunal noted the similarities between the present case and the case of M/s. S.A. Enterprise, where a similar issue was considered. Considering the amount already deposited and the additional offer, the Tribunal directed the applicant to deposit Rs. 20.00 Lakhs within eight weeks. Upon compliance, the balance dues against the applicant and all dues against the individual were waived, with recovery stayed during the appeal process.Comparison with Previous Case:The Ld. Advocate for the Revenue attempted to distinguish the facts of the present case from the case of M/s. S.A. Enterprise. However, the Tribunal found the issues to be comparable and decided in favor of the applicant based on the precedent set in the previous case. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the directed deposit and warned of dismissal of all appeals in case of non-compliance by the applicant.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
