TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Classification dispute over 'natural wash powder' & 'Brahmi Amla Oil' duty leads to pre-deposit order; Tribunal denies modification request.</h1> Classification dispute arose regarding 'natural wash powder' and 'Brahmi Amla Oil,' resulting in duty demand and penalty. Commissioner (Appeals) ordered ... Whether there is a case for modification of Final Order dated 28.11.2014 of the Tribunal ordering for pre-deposit of ₹ 7,50,000/- for admission of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or not - Availability of amended provisions of Section 35F introduced w.e.f. 6.8.2014 - Held that:- the amended provisions of Section 35F has come into force only we.f. 6.8.2014 but the impugned order was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 26.03.2014 and the appeal before the Tribunal was filed on 4.7.2014. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Anjani Technoplast Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs [2015 (10) TMI 2446 - DELHI HIGH COURT], considered the same issue and held that what is to be seen is the date of filing of the appeal. If the appeal is filed on or after 6.8.2014, then the conditions stipulated in the amended Section 129E of the Act (Customs Act) has to be fulfilled for the appeal to be entertained. Section 35F of the Central Excise Act now under consideration is on the same footing as Section 129E of the Customs Act. - Decided against the appellant Issues:Classification dispute on 'natural wash powder' and 'Brahmi Amla Oil'; Application of amended provisions of Section 35 F for pre-deposit in appeal.Classification Dispute:The case involved a classification dispute concerning 'natural wash powder' and 'Brahmi Amla Oil,' leading to a duty demand of Rs. 42,03,742 and an equal penalty imposed by the Original Authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) ordered pre-deposit of the entire duty amount, excluding the penalty. However, the appeal was rejected for non-compliance with the pre-deposit order. The Tribunal directed the deposit of Rs. 7,50,000 within six weeks and instructed the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide on the appeals post compliance. The appellant sought the applicability of the amended provisions of Section 35 F introduced w.e.f. 6.8.2014, emphasizing the need for a 7.5% pre-deposit, citing relevant case laws and tribunal orders.Application of Amended Section 35 F:The key issue was whether the appellant should benefit from the amended provisions of Section 35 F, which required a 7.5% pre-deposit for appeal admission. The appellant argued that despite filing the appeal before the amendment, they should be governed by the revised provisions. However, the respondent contended that the amended provisions applied only to appeals filed post-amendment. Citing decisions by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the Tribunal analyzed the applicability of the amended Section 35 F. The Hon'ble Courts clarified that the amended provisions were applicable to appeals filed after 6.8.2014, exempting pending appeals from compliance. The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's plea for modification, stating that the pre-deposit order was based on the merits of the case and found no grounds for interference.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the classification dispute and the application of amended provisions of Section 35 F, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal proceedings and decisions involved in the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
