Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 663 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine removal - removal of scrap of old and used moulds under job work challans - Not. No. 67/95 and Not. No. 214/86-CE - whether or not waste and scrap of CI moulds generated during the course of manufacture of final products can be converted into fresh CI moulds for being used in the factory of appellant itself without payment of duty within the framework of N/N. 67/95 dated 16.03.1995? - time limitation. Held that:- It is clear from the Notification that the capital goods produced in the factory of consumption are exempted. The view that captively consumed capital goods cannot be treated in the excluded category of final product mentioned in the above said proviso would generally negate exemption specifically given under serial No. (i) to captively consumed capital goods. Above all, the aforesaid exemption appears to have been extended so as to avoid multiple stages of taxation and taking credit in regard to goods manufacture and utilised in the same factory. The Notification shall be applicable only to the goods in respect of which the suppliers of raw materials or semi finished goods give an undertaking to Commissioner or Central Excise Office having jurisdiction over the factory of the job worker - The allegations against the appellant have been confirmed only for want of such undertaking - Held that:- Central Board of Excise & Customs clearly says that merely procedural lapses be not allowed to defeat the modvat credit benefit, if substantive conditions about payment of duty and user of goods in manufacture of end product in factory are fulfilled - In view of the admitted facts, there is sufficient compliance by the appellant qua the substantial liability as laid in the Notification relied upon is concerned. Mere lack of sending an intimation is a procedure which is mere directry. Denying the substantial benefit to the appellant on merely a procedural lapse is unjustified on the part of the adjudicating authority below. Time Limitation - Held that:- It is the onus of the Department to prove that assessee had deliberately avoided payment of duty which is payable in accordance of law - the appellant was not liable to make the payment of duty in view of the exemption vide Notification No. 67/95 qua the capital goods consumed in captive use after being reprocessed. Resultantly, there appears no alleged mensrea on the part of the appellant to evade duty - demand is time barred. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|