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>Tribunal rules delay not grounds to set aside demand, price valuation key in excise appeal</h1> The Tribunal held that the delay in adjudication did not warrant setting aside the demand when the show cause notice was timely issued. Regarding the ... Revenue had proceeded to enhance the price of Molasses removed to Kutcha Pit - value of the molasses cleared to Kutcha Pit cannot be compared with the price of molasses stored in tanks - They are different clearances and the parameters followed by them are also different - Revenue is not justified in enhancing the value of the molasses cleared to the Kutcha Pit in comparison with the price of molasses cleared from storage tanks. The demand is set aside Issues:1. Delay in adjudication leading to demand confirmation2. Discrepancy in valuation of molasses for clearances to Kutcha PitIssue 1: Delay in AdjudicationThe appeal arose from the Order-in-Appeal confirming the demand for clearances of molasses to Kutcha Pit for a specific period. The appellant argued that the delay in adjudication should set aside the proceedings, despite the show cause notice being issued in time. The Tribunal, after hearing the arguments, held that the delay in adjudication does not warrant setting aside the demand when the show cause notice was timely issued.Issue 2: Discrepancy in Valuation of MolassesThe Revenue revised the price of molasses cleared to Kutcha Pit, increasing it from the appellant's valuation range to a higher value. The appellants contested this increase, stating that the value for molasses stored in tanks cannot be compared to that cleared to Kutcha Pit. The Tribunal considered the submissions and concluded that the price adopted for clearances to Kutcha Pit should not be compared with molasses removed from storage tanks. Different clearances have different parameters, and under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, the Revenue was not justified in enhancing the value for molasses cleared to Kutcha Pit. Consequently, the demand was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief.In summary, the judgment addressed issues related to delay in adjudication impacting demand confirmation and the discrepancy in valuation of molasses for clearances to Kutcha Pit. The Tribunal clarified that the delay in adjudication did not warrant setting aside the demand when the show cause notice was timely issued. Furthermore, it emphasized that the value for molasses cleared to Kutcha Pit should not be compared with that of molasses stored in tanks, as they involve different parameters and clearances. As per Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, the Revenue's decision to enhance the value for molasses cleared to Kutcha Pit was not justified, leading to the demand being set aside and the appeal being allowed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
