CESTAT AHMEDABAD: POY not exempt from NCCD under Notification 67/95. Penalty set aside. The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision that Partially Oriented Yarn (POY) used within a factory for further ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
CESTAT AHMEDABAD: POY not exempt from NCCD under Notification 67/95. Penalty set aside.
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision that Partially Oriented Yarn (POY) used within a factory for further manufacture is not exempt from National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD) under Notification No. 67/95. The Tribunal found that NCCD was not included in the exemption provided for Additional Excise Duty (Goods of Special Importance) under the said notification. The penalty was also set aside due to lack of intent to evade duty. The appeal was rejected on 7-1-2009.
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD, in the 2009 judgment 2009 (1) TMI 152 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD, addressed the issue of whether Partially Oriented Yarn (POY) used within a factory for further manufacture is exempt from the payment of National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD) under Notification No. 67/95 dt. 16-3-199. The appellant argued that NCCD is a duty of excise and, according to Circular No. 641/32/2002-CX, no NCCD is leviable on goods exported under bond. The appellant also referenced Section 136 of the Finance Act to support their contention that NCCD is essentially excise duty. The Suriyanarayanan, the advocate, argued that the appellants were eligible for NCCD exemption for captive consumption. The Tribunal found that the provisions of Section 136(3) and Section 3(3) of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 were similar. Since Notification No. 67/95-C.E. specifically provided an exemption for AED (GSI) when used within the factory, and NCCD was not included in this notification, the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision was upheld. The Commissioner (Appeals) had already taken a lenient view on penalties, reducing it from Rs. 3 lakhs to Rs. 1 lakh. Given the interpretations presented and the lack of intent to evade duty, the Tribunal decided that no penalty was warranted and, thus, set it aside. The appeal was otherwise rejected, with the decision announced on 7-1-2009.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
AI OCR ✕
of 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
