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>Appeal referred to Larger Bench for conflicting orders, appellant denied benefit, manufacturer's exemption claim rejected.</h1> The appeal was referred to a Larger Bench due to conflicting orders in previous decisions. The appellant was denied the benefit of Notification 202/88 in ... Appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) Issues:1. Conflict of views in previous decisions leading to reference to Larger Bench.2. Denial of benefit of Notification 202/88 to the appellant.3. Entitlement to deemed credit under Order F. No. 342/1/88-TRU.4. Remittance of the matter to adjudicating authority for quantification of duty liability.5. Directions for timely resolution of the case.Analysis:1. The appeal was referred to a Larger Bench due to conflicting orders in previous decisions. The conflicting judgments were between Ankur Steels & Others v. CCE and Ravi Steel v. CCE on one side, and Pareek Ferro (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Maitri Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Chaturvedi Steel v. CCE, and CCE v. Agarwal Steel Inds. on the other.2. The appellant was denied the benefit of Notification 202/88 in a long-pending case where 9 show cause notices were issued over two years. The Order-in-Original confirmed a demand of Rs. 7,66,170.28, and the manufacturer's claim for exemption under the said notification was rejected. The appellant conceded that they were not entitled to the benefit of Notification 202/88.3. The appellant claimed entitlement to deemed credit under Order F. No. 342/1/88-TRU for the first time before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellate authority remitted the matter to the adjudicating authority for quantification of the appellant's duty liability, considering the Deemed Credit Order dated 1-6-1989. The appellant was directed to present their entire defense before the adjudicating authority.4. The adjudicating authority was directed to quantify the appellant's duty liability expeditiously, within four months from the date of the order. The resolution of the case was emphasized due to its long-pending nature, ensuring a timely conclusion of the matter.This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the issues addressed, the arguments presented by the parties, and the directions given for the resolution of the case, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the legal proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
