Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2021 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 1106 - HC - Central Excise100% EOU - central excise duty arrived on the depreciated value of the indigenously procured capital goods - section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - fulfillment of export obligation to a higher limit or not - payment of duty already compensated by fixing export obligation demand of duty again - HELD THAT:- It is clear that the assessee did not contest the dutiability of the indigenously procured capital goods on merit or on the quantum. Therefore, their plea was that based on the letter of the Assistant Commissioner dated 18.05.2006 central excise duty liability stood discharged. Unfortunately the assessee who has been registered under the provisions of the Central Excise Act has failed to take note of rudimentary legal principles. If the assessee claims that he has discharged the duty liability, the same should be established in the manner known to law by producing the necessary challan or an order to the said effect passed by the competent Assessing Officer. The Tribunal rightly held that the letter dated 18.05.2006 by the Assistant Commissioner to the Development Commissioner, MEPZ is not an order. The Tribunal was right in stating that the intention of the assessee was not as that of an honest tax payer as they failed to come forward to disclose that they have not paid the duty amount. That apart, as observed earlier the letter dated 18.05.2006 cannot be regarded as an assessment order and it is merely an inter-departmental communication. Admittedly, there was no adjudication done prior to the letter dated 18.05.2006 for it to be considered as an adjudication order and at best, it can be taken to be an inadvertent mistake committed by the authority in addressing the Development Commissioner. Precisely, for this reason the Tribunal has granted relief to the assessee by deleting the penalty which also in our considered view is a proper exercise of discretion by the Tribunal - the Tribunal has rightly re-appreciated the facts and rejected the appeal filed by the appellant/assessee. There are no question of law much less the substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal - appeal dismissed.
|