Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2025 (7) TMI 1135 - AT - Central ExciseRecovery of evaded Central excise Duty by invocation of extended period of limitation - appellant no. 1 had not obtained central excise registration and evaded payment of central excise duty by wilful suppression of facts from the Department - levy of penalties on proprietorship firm and proprietor both - HELD THAT - It is found that a joint physical stock verification were conducted in respect of the raw materials and finished goods lying in the factory premises of the appellant no. 1. The goods were detained for the purpose of further verification with their private records. On verification it was found that the stock of finished goods tallied with the stocks recorded in their private stock register. Thus the appellant no. 1 has maintained proper records of their manufacturing and clearance activities and there was complete transparency in the business operations of the appellants. The appellants have not suppressed any information before the Departmental authorities and there was a complete transparency in the business documents of the appellants. Further the appellants have also properly maintained the books of accounts followed proper VAT compliance and commercial invoicing in respect of their clearances. These facts have been admitted by the investigation in the show cause notice itself. Thus the suppression of facts with an intention to evade the tax has not been established in this case. Non-payment of central excise duty after crossing the threshold exemption limit of Rs. 1.5 crores - HELD THAT - The appellant no. 1 have submitted that they were under the bona fide belief that their value of clearances in all the financial years were less than Rs.1.5 crores and accordingly did not pay central excise duty on the goods manufactured and cleared by them as they have calculated the value of clearances by taking into account the sale value declared in the invoices and not on the basis of MRP less abatement. However the appellant no.1 accepted the fact that all the goods namely Pesticides Insecticides Micronutrients Herbicides etc. manufactured by the appellant no. 1 fall falling under Chapter 38.08 of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985 and are liable for MRP based assessment and the value of clearances are to be computed after allowing abatement at the rate of 30% from the MRP price. After allowing such abatement from the MRP based value the value of clearances in the respective financial years is found to be beyond the threshold limit of Rs.1.5 crores - appellant is liable to pay central excise duty for the goods manufactured and cleared by them after crossing the threshold exemption limit of 1.5 crores. However as there is no suppression of facts with intent to evade duty on the part of the appellants established in the instant case for invocation of the extended period of limitation the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case. Even with regard to the allegation of clandestine clearance of goods against the appellant no. 1 it is found that there is no corroborative evidence brought on record in the impugned order to substantiate this allegation. Hence the allegation of clandestine clearance also appears to be unsustainable. The demand confirmed in this case by invocation of the extended period of limitation is not sustainable. However it is a fact that the appellant has not disputed the duty liability for the extended period of limitation before the Commissioner (Appeals) and disputed only the penalty imposed on both the appellants. Thus even though the extended period of limitation is not invokable in this case to confirm the demand of duty it is not required to go into the merits of liability of duty confirmed for the extended period of limitation as the said issue was not part of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly the finding is restricted only with respect to penalty imposed on the appellants. Penalties imposed on the appellant no. 1 herein - HELD THAT - There is no suppression of facts with the intent to evade payment of duty attributable to the appellants in the present case. Further the appellants records and transactions have been found to be properly maintained / recorded VAT was duly paid and commercial invoices were issued for all clearances. The non-payment of central excise duty was only due to the bona fide belief that central excise duty was not liable to be paid. In these circumstances the imposition of penalty on the appellant no. 1 is not sustainable. Penalty imposed on the proprietor / appellant no. 2 under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 - HELD THAT - A proprietorship firm has no separate legal existence apart from its proprietor. The proprietor and the proprietorship are one and the same entity. Therefore I am of the view that imposing penalty both on the firm and its proprietor amounts to double jeopardy. Accordingly no separate penalty is imposable on the proprietor / appellant no. 2 and hence the same is liable to be set aside. The penalties imposed on both the appellants are set aside - appeal disposed off. ISSUES:
RULINGS / HOLDINGS:
RATIONALE:
|