Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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 orders M/s. Hindustan Platinum to deposit Rs. 1.25 crores for duty, with appeal deposit waiver</h1> The Tribunal directed M/s. Hindustan Platinum Private Limited to deposit Rs. 1.25 crores towards duty demand within 12 weeks, with a waiver of further ... Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit Issues:Waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalties based on the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-IV.Analysis:The case involved M/s. Hindustan Platinum Private Limited engaged in refining and manufacturing precious metals, where duty demand and penalties were imposed by the Commissioner. The dispute arose regarding the classification and duty liability of compounds of precious metals manufactured at an intermediate stage. The applicants argued that no compounds emerged and no duty was payable as they were engaged in processing used materials and scraps to recover precious metals without chemical refining. The Department contended that salts of precious metals emerged during the refining process and were marketable. The issue of limitation, quantification of duty, marketability, and the Department's awareness of the process were raised.The Tribunal considered the contentions and observed that salts of precious metals did emerge during the refining process, contrary to the applicants' claims. The issue of marketability and limitation required detailed examination. The Tribunal found that the applicants did not establish a strong prima facie case for a total waiver of duty and penalties. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the appellant company to deposit Rs. 1.25 crores towards duty demand within 12 weeks, with a waiver of further deposits during the appeal process. Failure to comply would lead to dismissal of the appeal.In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision balanced the interests of both parties by requiring a partial deposit while granting a waiver on further deposits during the appeal. The judgment emphasized the need for detailed consideration of the issues raised and the lack of a strong prima facie case for a total waiver.