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 grants stay on duty & penalty, citing legal question. Appellants challenge order on manufacturing, SSI exemption, tariff.</h1> <h3>BOOPATHY ENGINEERING WORKS Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE</h3> The Tribunal granted the stay application for dispensation of pre-deposit of duty and penalty, citing a short question of law resolution. The appellants ... Demand - Limitation Issues:Stay application for dispensation of pre-deposit of duty and penalty. Appeal based on five grounds: (a) manufacturer identification, (b) excisability of specific items, (c) classification under new tariff, (d) eligibility for SSI concession, and (e) limitation.Stay Application:The appellants sought dispensation of pre-deposit of a duty and penalty demanded by the Collector of Central Excise. The Tribunal decided to grant dispensation due to resolving the issue on a short question of law.Grounds of Appeal:The appellants challenged the order on five grounds but focused on three for the stay application. They argued that the Department was aware of their manufacturing activities before the show cause notice, making suppression claims invalid. The appellants claimed eligibility for SSI exemption and highlighted doubts in classification under the new tariff. They contended that the lower authority failed to consider tariff headings, interpretative rules, and a trade notice issued by the Department, indicating a lack of depth in the decision-making process.Department's Response:The Department reiterated the lower authority's reasoning and suggested a remand for reconsideration in light of specific documents and the new tariff.Tribunal's Decision:The Tribunal observed deficiencies in the lower authority's decision, noting a lack of specific findings on the appellants' declarations and manufacturing activities. It highlighted the necessity to analyze specific tariff items, chapter notes, and interpretative rules to determine the product's classification accurately. The Tribunal found the lower authority's order inadequate and remanded the matter for reconsideration, emphasizing the need for a detailed examination and granting the appellants an opportunity to be heard in accordance with the law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
