Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Anjaleem Enterprise P Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
Appeal Number : Customs Appeal No. 10151 of 2015
Date of Judgement/Order : 20/06/2022
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Anjaleem Enterprise P Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad)

Introduction: The case of Anjaleem Enterprise P Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. at CESTAT Ahmedabad revolves around the violation of the Tribunal’s directions by lower authorities. The Tribunal’s explicit order regarding the period for allowing depreciation was disregarded by both the Lower Adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals). This article delves into the intricacies of the case, highlighting the disregard for the Tribunal’s remand order and its implications on duty calculation.

Detailed Analysis: The Tribunal, in its remand order, unequivocally directed that depreciation should be allowed up to the date of payment of duty, rejecting the Revenue’s contention that it should only be allowed until the date of application for de-bonding. However, the Lower Adjudicating authority, in an Order-In-Original dated 28.03.2002, incorrectly held that depreciation was allowed only up to the date of permission for de-bonding. This decision was contrary to the Tribunal’s explicit directive.

Lower authorities, including the Commissioner (Appeals), failed to adhere to the Tribunal’s orders, leading to an unsustainable impugned order. The appellant rightly argued that if depreciation is considered up to the date of payment, the duty amounts to nil. The non-compliance with the Tribunal’s directions and the subsequent flawed calculation of duty make the demand legally unsustainable.

Conclusion: In conclusion, the CESTAT Ahmedabad’s judgment in Anjaleem Enterprise P Ltd Vs C.C.E. & S.T. highlights a critical issue of non-compliance with the Tribunal’s orders by lower authorities. The case emphasizes the importance of following directives and the legal implications when such orders are disregarded. The disregard for the period of depreciation as directed by the Tribunal led to an incorrect calculation of duty, making the demand untenable. The Tribunal rightly set aside the impugned order, stressing the significance of adhering to judicial directives.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031