TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether mandatory pre-deposit was required when the appeal was filed against a letter rejecting extension of time and no demand of duty, interest or penalty was involved; (ii) whether further extension of time for installation of machinery imported under the EPCG scheme was to be granted.
Issue (i): Whether mandatory pre-deposit was required when the appeal was filed against a letter rejecting extension of time and no demand of duty, interest or penalty was involved.
Analysis: The appeal was directed against a communication rejecting further extension of time, and there was no consequential demand of duty, interest or penalty.
Conclusion: Mandatory pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not required.
Issue (ii): Whether further extension of time for installation of machinery imported under the EPCG scheme was to be granted.
Analysis: The appellant was a Government undertaking dependent on Government funding, the delay was attributed to genuine fund constraints and diversion of funds for pollution-control related work, and the earlier order had left open the possibility of further extension depending on progress made. The request was therefore examined on the basis of the circumstances explained by the appellant.
Conclusion: Further extension of time up to 31/12/2018 was granted.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent of relieving the appellant from the pre-deposit requirement and securing extension of time for installation of the imported machinery.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an appeal challenges only a refusal of extension of time and no duty, interest, or penalty demand survives, mandatory pre-deposit is not attracted; and further extension may be granted where delay is shown to be bona fide and justified by the surrounding circumstances.
TaxTMI 
