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 Upholds Duty Denial, Clarifies Warehouse Parts Clearance</h1> <h3>DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS (P) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., NOIDA</h3> DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS (P) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., NOIDA - 2004 (172) E.L.T. 257 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:Rectification of mistake in Tribunal's Final Order regarding denial of benefit of Notification No. 6/2000-C.E., applicability of duty on parts supplied from factory and warehouse, penalty under Section 11AC, interest under Section 11AB, and the Tribunal's findings on the same.Analysis:1. Rectification of Mistake in Tribunal's Final Order:The applicant sought rectification of a mistake in the Tribunal's Final Order regarding the denial of the benefit of Notification No. 6/2000-C.E. The advocate argued that the determination of clearances should only consider clearances from the manufacturing unit, not the trading warehouse. He emphasized that the Tribunal did not make any adverse findings regarding the clubbing of clearances. The Tribunal observed that the Circular dated 25-9-2002 clarified the classification of assemblies or kits and remanded the matter to verify if all specified parts were supplied by the appellants from the factory or trading warehouse. The Tribunal found no mistake in this aspect and rejected the application.2. Applicability of Duty on Parts Supplied from Factory and Warehouse:The Department contended that the applicants were clearing car air-conditioner parts from both the manufacturing unit and trading warehouse. The Commissioner's finding suggested that the applicants bifurcated clearances to give the impression of manufacturing parts. The Tribunal remanded the matter to verify if all specified parts were supplied as per the Circular. The Tribunal noted that no duty would be payable on parts cleared from the warehouse. The application was rejected based on the specific findings of the Commissioner.3. Penalty under Section 11AC and Interest under Section 11AB:The advocate argued that since the penalty under Section 11AC was set aside, interest under Section 11AB should not be demanded. The Department, however, maintained that interest was applicable as per the amended provisions effective from 11-5-2001. The Tribunal found no mistake in rejecting the penalty under Section 11AC but allowed the rectification application concerning interest under Section 11AB. The Tribunal ordered the removal of the demand for interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, as it had not given any finding on its applicability in the Final Order.In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed the rectification of mistakes in the Final Order, the applicability of duty on parts supplied from the factory and warehouse, the penalty under Section 11AC, and interest under Section 11AB. The Tribunal upheld its decision on the denial of the benefit of Notification No. 6/2000-C.E. and the classification of clearances based on the Circular. It also clarified the non-applicability of duty on parts cleared from the trading warehouse and allowed the rectification application regarding the demand for interest under Section 11AB.
TaxTMI 