Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 583 - AT - Central ExciseSSI Exemption - Penalty u/s 11AC - Invocation of extended period of limitation - Held that:- Goods so called as cartons, wallets or catch covers are similar in nature and are meant for packaging of different products. We have also gone through the heading 4817 as also 4819. We find that heading 4817 covers wallets of paper or paperboard containing an assortment of paper stationery. The goods manufactured by the appellant are primarily meant for packaging of condoms, pencils, pharmaceutical items. These will therefore not be covered by the description given in heading 4817. These would be clearly covered under heading 4819.19 and would be chargeable to duty. During investigation, the appellants have not clarified and made such a claim. We also note that the description in all the copies is inserts. An insert can be a leaflet or some other item of cardboard. In the event the inserts are nothing but printed leaflets, then these would not be chargeable to duty and the same would be required to be excluded from the computation of duty. On this issue, the matter is remanded to the Commissioner. Appellant has not produced any documents even before this Tribunal so as to indicate that they have the duty paying documents. However, in the interest of justice, we are giving two months' time from today to produce the duty paying documents used in the manufacture of dutiable cartons, wallets, catch covers etc. and correlate the same (with grammage etc.) to their final products. Such documents will be produced before the jurisdictional Commissioner. Thereafter the Commissioner will examine the claim of the appellant and in case they are entitled to the cenvat credit, extend the same. The balance amount of duty will be paid by the appellant in cash within 30 days from communicating the requantification details. In case the appellants fail to produce the said documents within two months, it will be assumed that they are not claiming cenvat credit and requnatification done. Keeping in view the fact that different copies of the invoices were manipulated, it is a case of fraud and extended period of limitation is correctly involved and is upheld. Penalty under Section 11AC and interest are also upheld. However, the amount of duty, interest and penalty will require to be requantified. The role of Shri Subhash Palande who was the managing director and was looking after the day-to-day work, has been clearly brought out in the adjudication order and the manipulation in the description in the different copies of the invoices cannot happen without his direction and we, therefore, do not find any merits in his appeal. Similarly, it is not disputed that appellants 3 and 4 were not in the business of manufacturing cartons, catch covers etc. but were only making the positive plates for printing industry. The goods which have been shown as if manufactured by appellants 3 and 4, were in fact manufactured by appellant No. 1 and they have connived so as to evade payment of excise duty. The penalties have been correctly imposed on them. - Decided party in favour of appellants.
|