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>Exemption under Notification 12/2012-CE allowed for goods cleared under Served from India Scheme despite procedural lapses</h1> <h3>KEC International Ltd. Versus C.C.E. & S.T. – Daman And Tarun Santra Versus C.C.E. & S.T. Daman</h3> KEC International Ltd. Versus C.C.E. & S.T. – Daman And Tarun Santra Versus C.C.E. & S.T. Daman - TMI Issues:1. Whether the Appellant wrongly availed exemption from duty for goods cleared under a specific notification.2. Whether the demand raised against the Appellant is time-barred.3. Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the demand and imposing personal penalty.4. Whether the Appellant is entitled to the benefit of a specific exemption notification.5. Whether the impugned order by the Commissioner (Appeals) is legal and proper.Analysis:Issue 1:The Appellant, engaged in the manufacture of electric wire and cable XLPE, cleared goods without duty payment under Notification No.12/2012-CE. The Assistant Commissioner alleged non-compliance with conditions under Notification No.34/2006-CE and failure to follow prescribed procedures. The Appellant contended that goods were cleared under Sr.No.336 of Notification No.12/2012-CE for International Competitive Bidding, supported by PAC and invoices. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand citing non-compliance with conditions, which the Tribunal found incorrect based on the Appellant's submissions and previous judgments in the Appellant's favor.Issue 2:The Appellant argued that the demand was time-barred as there was no intention to evade duty payment. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the demand was hit by time bar, supported by the Appellant's compliance with the exemption notification and lack of suppression of facts.Issue 3:The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand and imposed a personal penalty, which the Tribunal found erroneous. The Tribunal held that the Appellant was entitled to the benefit of Notification No.12/2012-CE, and the demand and penalty were not sustainable.Issue 4:The Appellant claimed the benefit of Notification No.12/2012-CE, which does not contain additional conditions beyond submission of PAC. The Tribunal upheld the Appellant's entitlement to the exemption based on the notification's clear provisions and previous judgments in the Appellant's favor.Issue 5:The Tribunal found the Commissioner (Appeals) order improper as it did not consider the Appellant's entitlement to the exemption under Notification No.12/2012-CE. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals and consequentially nullifying the penalty on the Appellant.In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant, holding that they were entitled to the exemption under Notification No.12/2012-CE and that the demand and penalty were not sustainable. The Commissioner (Appeals) order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
