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 duty could be demanded from the recipient unit for furnace oil procured under CT-2 certificate through Chapter X procedure when the material was used for the declared purpose; (ii) Whether the Department's challenge to the reduced rate of duty for the relevant period could succeed.
Issue (i): Whether duty could be demanded from the recipient unit for furnace oil procured under CT-2 certificate through Chapter X procedure when the material was used for the declared purpose.
Analysis: The recipient had obtained CT-2 certificates after making disclosure for procurement of furnace oil as feedstock and had received the goods without payment of duty under the Chapter X procedure. The bond executed by the recipient was intended to ensure that the material was not diverted or used for any purpose other than the declared one. The record did not show any misdeclaration by the recipient, and the subsequent judicial view that furnace oil could not be treated as feedstock did not by itself establish wrongdoing on the recipient's part. Since the material was used for the intended purpose, the bond obligation stood discharged. In such circumstances, recovery of duty from the recipient unit was not warranted.
Conclusion: The duty demand against the recipient unit was not sustainable and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the Department's challenge to the reduced rate of duty for the relevant period could succeed.
Analysis: The Department's appeal was confined to the Commissioner (Appeals)'s reduction of the duty rate for the period from 1-3-2000 to 25-6-2002. Once the principal demand against the recipient unit was held unsustainable on the facts and legal position governing the CT-2 procurement, the Department's challenge to the reduced rate did not survive.
Conclusion: The Department's challenge failed and this issue was decided against the Revenue.
Final Conclusion: The assessee's appeals succeeded and the Department's appeal was rejected, resulting in complete relief against the impugned demand.
Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are procured under CT-2 certificate pursuant to the declared end-use, and the recipient is not shown to have misdeclared or diverted the goods, duty cannot be recovered from the recipient merely because the later legal position shows that the declared use was not eligible for exemption.
TaxTMI 
