Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether capital goods received by one unit of a manufacturer and later moved, after intimation to the department, to another unit of the same manufacturer attracted differential duty as if manufactured and cleared by the first unit; and whether the demand and penalty could be sustained in the facts of the case.
Analysis: The capital goods were received by one unit, were not installed there, and were later removed to another unit of the same legal entity. The removal had been intimated to the departmental authorities. The Tribunal noted that, if a higher duty amount had been paid at the time of removal, the same would have been available as credit to the other unit, making the situation revenue neutral. It also found that the governing rule permitted use of capital goods in the factory of the manufacturer of final products, and the goods were in fact used by the same manufacturer, though in a different factory.
Conclusion: The duty demand and consequential penalty were not sustainable, and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) required no interference.
Ratio Decidendi: Where capital goods are transferred between units of the same manufacturer after intimation to the department and the transaction is revenue neutral, differential duty and penalty are not warranted merely because the goods were used in a different factory.