Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 3 - CESTAT CHENNAIClandestine removal - Department took the view that the endorsement in the ground plan of Guindy unit by the Superintendent did not appear to show that permission was accorded to M/s. CMS to remove and store their non-duty paid goods at the premises of M/s. MOC - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the impugned goods were being stored outside the factory premises of M/s. CMS. They were thus only being stored in the premises of their sister unit. Removals of goods have been meticulously entered in the R.G. 1 returns required to be filed by M/s. CMS from time to time. There is also no allegation that some or all of the goods which had been so shifted from M/s. CMS to M/s. MOC had been clandestinely removed therefrom or diverted without discharge of duty liability - On the other hand, as per the facts on record, M/s. CMS had paid duty on the machineries manufactured by them and transferred to Guindy unit, albeit on a notional value, and, at the time of clearance of complete machineries, they would pay the appropriate duty on the actual value, after adjusting the duty earlier paid by them. In respect of the impugned goods, such duty amount paid on provisional basis based on the notional value amounted to ₹ 16,42,425/-, which was, in any case, more than even the enhanced duty demand of ₹ 15,65,921.19/- proposed to be demanded in the corrigendum to the Show Cause Notice - there was nothing mala fide about the practice being followed by M/s. CMS. All the removals, though done only on delivery challans, had been reflected in their R.G. 1 returns. Though specific permission for such removals was not obtained, it cannot be denied that M/s. MOC had got their ground plan endorsed with a portion approved by the jurisdictional Range Superintendent for storing machineries. The appellants could very well have qualified for permission to store the finished goods outside their factory premises in terms of the amendment brought about in Rule 47 ibid with effect from 10.05.1989. At the most, there has been some procedural lapse in not having followed the correct protocol for removal of such goods. We are constrained to note that such a procedural lapse which could have been resolved by suitable warning and/or advice from the Department, has been blown up to this extent. If this is not making a mountain of a mole hill, then what is? Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|