9911796707
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 fully migrated on 31-July-2025 at 23:59:59
After this date, all services will be available exclusively on our new platform.
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know
via our feedback form
, with specific details, so we can address them promptly.
Follow us:
|
Home
1999 (6) TMI 304 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
1. Demand confirmation on clandestine clearance of M.S. Flats 2. Disallowance of deemed credit on M.S. Billets 3. Imposition of penalty 4. Confiscation of assets Analysis: Issue 1: Demand Confirmation on Clandestine Clearance of M.S. Flats The case involved the clandestine clearance of M.S. Flats by the appellants. The Central Excise Officers discovered the clandestine clearance of M.S. Billets and issued a show cause notice to the appellants. The appellants contested the demand, arguing that it was based on assumptions. The appellants claimed they had opted for Modvat credit and had not received the quantity alleged by the authorities. The Tribunal found that the Department failed to provide sufficient evidence of actual delivery of the goods to the appellants, leading to the appeal being allowed on this issue. Issue 2: Disallowance of Deemed Credit on M.S. Billets The appellants had availed deemed Modvat credit on M.S. Billets, claiming they were duty paid. However, investigations revealed that these billets were manufactured by a company without duty payment. As a result, the Tribunal ruled that the deemed Modvat credit was wrongly taken by the appellants, leading to the appeal being dismissed on this count. Issue 3: Imposition of Penalty The Tribunal held that the appellants had wrongly taken deemed Modvat credit despite knowing the goods were non-duty paid, justifying the imposition of a penalty. However, considering the circumstances, the Tribunal deemed the initial penalty amount too harsh and reduced it from Rs. 3,50,000 to Rs. 25,000. Issue 4: Confiscation of Assets Regarding the confiscation of land, plant, building, and machinery belonging to the appellants, the Tribunal found it unjustifiable. Therefore, the order of confiscation was set aside. In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of with the demand confirmation on clandestine clearance of M.S. Flats being rejected, the disallowance of deemed credit on M.S. Billets being upheld, the penalty being reduced, and the confiscation of assets being set aside.
|
