Just a moment...
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 the assessee was entitled to waiver of pre-deposit and whether the appeal should be remanded for decision on merits.
Analysis: The demand arose from clearance of mild steel bars under Notification No. 208/83. The denial of the notification benefit rested on the ground that the rerollable material used as input had itself been exempted under Notification No. 386/86. The Tribunal noted that a prior decision had held that benefit under Notification No. 208/83 could not be denied merely because no duty had been paid on the inputs, since the notification did not require payment of a specific duty on inputs and nil duty could still amount to payment of duty for this purpose. On that basis, the matter was treated as prima facie covered by the earlier view.
Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to waiver of pre-deposit, and the appeal was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for disposal on merits without insisting on any deposit.
Final Conclusion: The order granted interim relief to the assessee and sent the matter back for fresh adjudication on the substantive dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the exemption notification does not require payment of a specific duty on inputs, denial of the notification benefit cannot rest solely on the ground that the inputs were exempt or subjected to nil duty.