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 sets aside duty demand on illicit tobacco based on Rule 9A interpretation</h1> <h3>M KANDASWAMY GOUNDER Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS</h3> The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the duty demand on illicitly removed tobacco based on the interpretation of Rule 9A. The duty on ... Demand Issues:1. Interpretation of Rule 9A of the Central Excise Rules regarding duty on illicitly removed tobacco.Analysis:The case involved a dispute regarding the duty on tobacco illicitly removed from a warehouse. The appellant argued that the duty demand should be set aside based on a previous decision and the interpretation of Rule 9A. The appellant had already paid the fine on the substituted tobacco and the penalty imposed. The main contention was regarding the duty on the tobacco held to have been clandestinely removed.The appellant's counsel contended that the clandestine removal was not disputed, but the duty demand should be set aside based on the interpretation of Rule 9A. The argument was centered around the timing of the removal, which occurred before a specific amendment to the rule. The appellant sought relief from the duty demand on this basis.The respondent, representing the Collector, argued against the applicability of a specific sub-rule of Rule 9A to the case. The respondent contended that a different sub-rule should be applied based on the date of removal and the rate of duty applicable at that time. The respondent's argument was based on the interpretation of the rule and the date of removal.The Tribunal analyzed the arguments from both sides and referred to a previous decision to resolve the issue. The Tribunal found that the appellant's case was indeed covered by the previous decision regarding the interpretation of Rule 9A. The Tribunal held that the duty demand on the illicitly removed tobacco should be covered by a specific sub-rule of Rule 9A. As the duty had not been paid and there was no current duty on unmanufactured tobacco, the Tribunal set aside the demand for duty on the mentioned quantity of tobacco. The appeal was allowed in part, and the rest of the appeal was rejected, confirming the order of the Appellate Collector.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
