TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioner's application for fixation of a special rate under Notification No. 20/2008-Central Excise dated 27.03.2008 was required to be considered before the department proceeded on the basis of the reduced refund rate, and whether coercive steps including action against the petitioner's bank account could be taken pending such consideration.
Analysis: The notification itself conferred an option on the manufacturer to seek fixation of a special rate representing actual value addition where the prescribed table rate was said to be lower than the actual entitlement. Since the petitioner had made such an application, the claim had to be examined on merits before any recovery or coercive action was pursued on the footing of the notification rate. In that situation, it was not for the department to proceed coercively without first deciding the pending request for special rate. The Court therefore directed the Principal Commissioner to decide the application within a fixed time and restrained coercive action in the meantime, including action affecting the petitioner's bank account.
Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to have the special rate application considered first, and coercive measures were stayed until such decision was taken.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
