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>Tribunal invalidates duty demand on Air Conditioner Units, granting relief to appellants.</h1> <h3>TRF LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAMSHEDPUR</h3> TRF LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAMSHEDPUR - 2008 (224) E.L.T. 135 (Tri. - Kolkata) Issues:1. Multiplicity of proceedings and Show Cause Notices leading to differential duty demand.2. Availment of Cenvat credit on Air Conditioner Units and removal of the same as 'input as such.'Analysis:1. The judgment dealt with a case involving multiple Show Cause Notices and a factual report from the Jurisdictional Commissioner. The Commissioner highlighted various instances of differential duty demands due to classification disputes of parts and components versus machines. The Order-in-Original No. 24/Commr/05 dated 12-12-2005 set aside the proposed demand of duty for parts and components, classifying them as machines. However, a differential duty short paid on other grounds was confirmed. The issue of Cenvat credit on Air Conditioner Units also arose, with multiple Show Cause Notices issued. The Commissioner allowed the credit as admissible but confirmed a differential duty, leading to an appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 31-12-2003.2. The appellants argued that the air conditioner, treated as part of stamping, charging, and pushing machinery, was classified correctly. They contended that the duty paid for the machinery should cover the air conditioner as an input for finished goods. The jurisdictional commissioner's order dated 12-12-2005 supported this classification. The appellants disputed the denial of credit on carbon copy/photo copy availed. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and the report from the Jurisdictional Commissioner, concluded that the duty demand on the air conditioner as clearance of inputs was unjustified. Consequently, the duty demand and penalty imposed were set aside, granting consequential benefits to the appellants.In conclusion, the judgment resolved the issues of differential duty demands and Cenvat credit on Air Conditioner Units by analyzing the classification of the air conditioner as part of the finished goods and the duty paid accordingly. The Tribunal overturned the duty demand and penalty, providing relief to the appellants based on the classification and payment of duty for the machinery in question.
TaxTMI 