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>Appellant liable for processing fabrics without license, duty exemption denied for using steam. Timely notice upheld, penalty reduced.</h1> The Tribunal found the appellant liable for processing fabrics with steam without the required license, leading to duty liability. The appellant's claim ... Adjudication - Show cause notice - Penalty Issues:1. Contravention of Central Excise Rules regarding processing of fabrics with power or steam.2. Claim of exemption from duty based on processing method.3. Timeliness of the notice issued by the Department.4. Penalty imposed on the appellant.5. Reduction of penalty amount.6. Extension of time for compliance with the Collector's order.Analysis:1. The appellant-firm was accused of contravening Central Excise Rules by processing cotton fabrics with power or steam without the required license. The appellant contested the claim, stating that power was not used, but steam was employed for heating dye and wax solutions. The Tribunal found no evidence of power usage but concluded that steam was utilized, leading to duty liability.2. The Tribunal determined the processing method based on the appellant's statement that the fabric was not coarse and that steam was used. The claim for duty exemption hinged on the absence of power usage. As the Tribunal's decision was factual and supported by the appellant's admission of steam usage, it was deemed legally sound.3. The appellant argued that the Department's notice was time-barred, but the Tribunal disagreed, emphasizing the appellant's admission of steam usage. Despite this, leniency was suggested regarding the penalty due to the circumstances.4. In light of the case specifics, the Court decided to partially allow the appeal and reduce the penalty imposed on the appellant to Rs. 5,000.5. The Court granted an extension for the appellant to provide any outstanding details or information required for compliance with the Collector's order, extending the deadline by two months.6. Each party was directed to bear their own costs, concluding the judgment on the Central Excise matter involving fabric processing methods and duty liability.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
