Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2011 (3) TMI 1214

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the years 1992-93 to 19996-97 for approval by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, wherein they have claimed deduction under 15 accounts. The assessments were kept provisional at that time. The Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 30/04/97 allowed the claim of the assessee in respect of 10 accounts and disallowed the following balance 5 discounts in respect of (i) Special Secondary Packing, (ii) C & F Agent Remuneration (ii) Quantity discount (iv) Discount on damages (v) Handling charges. 3. The party went in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who remanded the case for denovo adjudication vide order dated 27/05/2008  and the Assistant Commissioner vide his order dated 31/08/98 disallowed the quantity discount  a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Commissioner issued a show-cause notice  dated 25/02/2003 for the rejection of the refund. Since the assessee took some time for replying to the show-cause notice and sought extension time for personal hearing, the Assistant Commissioner without hearing the assessee passed an order dated 22/04/2003 rejecting their claim only on the ground that the encashment of bank guarantee for disallowance of quantity discount cannot be  equated or termed as pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944  and the assessee was required to file required refund claim in format R-1 prescribed under Rule 173S of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 4. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who  upheld....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ies Pvt Ltd., Vs. CC Jamnagar, reported in 2009 (237) ELT 152 (Tri.) wherein it has been held that in the case of provisional assessment  furnishing of security in the shape of bank guarantee or otherwise is to be treated as payment of duty in anticipation  of finalization of duty liability, and the same cannot be regarded as pre-deposit within the meaning of Section 129E  of the Customs Act, 1962. 7. We have considered the rival submissions. 8. In the instant case, the goods were assessed  to duty provisionally and the assessee had executed a bond and bank guarantee for the provisional assessment in terms of  9 (B) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.  Rule 9 (B) (5) specifically provides when the provis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e law or in accordance with the  circular/instructions issued by the Board.  9. In the Oswal Agro Mills case the apex Court held as follows:-       The bank guarantee is security for the Revenue, that in the event the Revenue succeeds its dues will be recoverable, being backed by the guarantee of a bank. In the event, however, unlikely, of the bank refusing to honour its guarantee it would be necessary for the Revenue or, where the bank guarantee is in favour of the principal administrative officer of the Court, that officer to file a suit against the bank for the amount due upon the bank guarantee. The amount of the disputed tax or duty that is secured by a bank guarantee cannot, therefore, be hel....