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>Appeal partially allowed, duty liability confirmed, penalty and interest waived under Rule 96ZP(3)</h1> <h3>M/s. Kundil Ispat Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Cen. Excise & Customs, Goa</h3> M/s. Kundil Ispat Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Cen. Excise & Customs, Goa - TMI Issues involved: Interpretation of Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; Sustainability of demand in light of judgments on ultra vires Rules; Liability for duty, interest, and penalty.Analysis:1. The case involved a dispute where the appellant, a predecessor company, did not pay duty as per Rule 96ZP(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, leading to the issuance of show cause notices. The demand was confirmed with interest and a penalty of Rs. 6 lakhs imposed. The appellant appealed against the Order-in-Original, which was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals), prompting the appeal before the Tribunal.2. The appellant argued that judgments by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and the Supreme Court rendered Rules 96ZO, 96ZP, and 96ZQ ultra vires, questioning the sustainability of the demand. The Tribunal noted that the issue in those judgments pertained to penalty under the Compounded Levy Scheme, while the present case involved duty, interest, and penalty. The Supreme Court's decision highlighted that the omission of the compounded levy scheme did not absolve the duty liability for the operational period, distinguishing between duty and penalty/interest aspects.3. The Assistant Commissioner representing the Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order, emphasizing the demand's validity.4. After considering both parties' submissions and the relevant judgments, the Tribunal concluded that while interest and penalty could not be enforced due to the ultra vires Rules, the duty remained legally recoverable. Citing a judgment by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, the Tribunal maintained the duty demand but waived the penalty and interest imposed by the lower authority. The appeal was partly allowed, confirming the duty while modifying the impugned order to exclude penalty and interest.This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the Tribunal's thorough consideration of legal precedents, specifically addressing the sustainability of the demand concerning duty, interest, and penalty under the Central Excise Rules, 1944, in light of relevant judicial interpretations.
TaxTMI 