TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
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>Court upholds Tribunal's waiver of pre-deposit for interest, allows penalty recovery; petitioner's challenge dismissed</h1> <h3>M/s Gopal Mills Versus The Chief Commissioner (CZ) and others</h3> The High Court upheld the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision to waive the pre-deposit requirement for the interest amount but ... Waiver of requirement of pre-deposit- High court upheld the decision of the Tribunal waiving requirement of pre-deposit to the extent of the amount in dispute in appeal and allowing to recover the amount of penalty which was not in dispute in appeal. Issues:Challenge against order of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal waiving pre-deposit requirement; Determination of penalty; Duty re-computation; Tribunal's order on stay application.Analysis:The petitioner filed a petition against the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's order waiving the pre-deposit requirement for the disputed amount in appeal but allowing the recovery of the penalty amount not in dispute. The petitioner had opted for the Compounded Levy Scheme under Rule 96ZE of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. However, upon verification, it was discovered that the petitioner's capacity exceeded the declared capacity, leading to a higher duty demand and imposition of a penalty. The Tribunal's initial order on the appeal reduced the penalty to Rs.10 lacs, which was not challenged by the petitioner, making it final. Subsequently, after re-computation of duty, the petitioner appealed again, leading to a stay application. The Tribunal, considering that the entire duty had been paid, waived the pre-deposit requirement for the interest amount but allowed the recovery of the undisputed penalty amount.The High Court noted that the Tribunal had already granted a waiver for the unpaid amount, except for the penalty amount not in dispute in the appeal. The Court found that the Tribunal's order was not erroneous, as it was clear in its decision. The Court concluded that no interference was necessary, and therefore, dismissed the petition challenging the Tribunal's decision.
TaxTMI 
