Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 3]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

M/S.Kiran Pondy Chems Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, Tuticorin on 18 June, 2010

        

 
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI


Appeal Nos.C/277 & 278/2009

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.54/2009 and 55/2009 both dated 03.06.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Trichirapalli]

For approval and signature:

Honble Smt. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President


1.	Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the       : Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT	 (Procedure) Rules, 1982?					      
2.	Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the        :
	CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in 
          any authoritative report or not?				      	      
3.	Whether the Member wishes to see the fair copy of        :
	the Order?								      
4.	Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental   :
	Authorities?							      

M/s.Kiran Pondy Chems Ltd.
M/s.Kiran Global Chems Ltd.
Appellants


       Versus


Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin
Respondent

Appearance :

Shri S. Venkatachalam, Adv. Shri T.H. Rao, SDR For the Appellants For the Respondent CORAM:
Honble Smt. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Date of hearing : 18.06.2010 Date of decision : 18.06.2010 Final Order No.____________ The issue in dispute in the present appeals stands decided against the assessees by the apex court decision in Tanfac Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner - 2009 (244) E.L.T. A.121 (S.C.), upholding the judgement of the Honble Madras High Court reported in 2009 (240) E.L.T.341 (Mad.), holding that goods cleared under DEPB Scheme cannot be treated as exempted and are duty paid goods and, hence interest is payable on them, if the same are cleared from the warehouse beyond the 90 days period as per Section 61 of the Customs Act, 1962. The challenge of the assessees on the ground that payment by debit in DEPB is not a cash payment but an exemption and hence interest is not payable on non-existent duty was rejected.

2. Following the above cited decision, I uphold the impugned orders and reject the appeals. (Dictated and pronounced in open court) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM) VICE-PRESIDENT ksr 22-06-2010 ??

??

??

??

1 2