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
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>Tribunal rules in favor of appellant on exports, duty exemption, and penalty issues</h1> <h3>Pankaj Extrusion Ltd, Hitesh Shah and KP Shah Versus C.C.E. & S.T. -Vapi</h3> Pankaj Extrusion Ltd, Hitesh Shah and KP Shah Versus C.C.E. & S.T. -Vapi - TMI Issues:1. Liability to pay 10% on the value of clearance to SEZ developer under Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.2. Excise duty on refundable security deposit for die development charges.3. Liability to pay excise duty on excess insurance charges collected from customers.Issue 1:The appellant contended that the supplies made to SEZ should be considered as export, supported by various judgments. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the supplies to SEZ are considered as export of goods, and the specific entry by Clause (v) of Rule 6(6) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 makes the payment of 10% inapplicable. The demand on this ground was set aside.Issue 2:Regarding the demand of duty on refundable security deposit for die development charges, the Tribunal noted that if the appellant retained the amount of die development charges not returned, it should be included in the assessable value of the final product. This issue was remanded for re-examination based on the treatment of such deposits in the appellant's books.Issue 3:On the demand for differential duty on excess insurance charges, the Tribunal cited precedents to support that excess insurance charges not being part of the price of goods should not be liable to duty. The demand on this count was set aside.The Tribunal allowed the appeals, modifying the impugned order accordingly. The personal penalties on the individuals were set aside as the issue involved interpretation of law and not clandestine removal of goods.