TaxTMI Login
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
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>Tribunal rules in favor of appellants on benefit eligibility under Notification No. 67/95-C.E.</h1> <h3>RASHTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., VISAKHAPATNAM</h3> RASHTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., VISAKHAPATNAM - 2003 (161) E.L.T. 285 (Tri. - Bang.) , 2003 (54) RLT 317 Issues involved: Eligibility of benefit under Notification No. 67/95-C.E., payment of duty on manufactured items, imposition of penalty.Eligibility of benefit under Notification No. 67/95-C.E.: The Tribunal considered the issue of eligibility of benefit under Notification No. 67/95 in the appellant's case. The Commissioner had rejected the claim based on the grounds that certain items were not used in the manufacturing process. However, the Tribunal disagreed with this finding, citing precedents and clarifications by the Board. It was established that certain products, when consumed within the factory, could be considered intermediate products, and if used in the manufacturing chain leading to the final product, would be eligible for the benefit of the notification. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants on this issue.Payment of duty on manufactured items: The appellants had already paid duty on the goods manufactured for civil construction and maintenance purposes. While not contesting the duty payment itself, they argued against the imposition of a penalty since the duty amount had been deposited even before the issuance of the show cause notice. The Tribunal acknowledged the pre-deposit of duty and found merit in the argument that no penalty should be imposed under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Consequently, no interest was deemed payable in this regard.Imposition of penalty: Considering the circumstances where duty had been deposited prior to the show cause notice, the Tribunal found no justification for imposing a penalty on the appellants. It was concluded that the Department should not impose penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, as well as no interest being payable. As a result, the appeal was disposed of in favor of the appellants based on the arguments presented regarding the payment of duty and the imposition of penalties.
TaxTMI 