|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 781 Records
-
2009 (12) TMI 789
Reversal of CENVAT credit - job-work - Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001/2002 - non-maintenance of separate books of accounts for dutiable and exempted goods - whether the respondent as job worker were eligible for Cenvat credit of inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of goods on job work, which were cleared without payment of duty to the principal manufacturers who, in turn, cleared the same on payment of duty?
-
2009 (12) TMI 788
Issues Involved:
1. Confiscation and penalties imposed u/s 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Alleged denial of natural justice due to non-furnishing of documents.
3. Validity of penalties imposed under Section 11AC for periods prior to its enforcement.
Summary:
1. Confiscation and Penalties Imposed u/s 11AC:
The appeals arose from two orders dated 15-11-2001, which involved confiscation of excisable goods and imposition of penalties. The first order involved confiscation of 1030 MT of goods valued at Rs. 1,03,00,000/- with a redemption fine of Rs. 10,00,000/-, and penalties under Rule 173Q and Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The second order involved confiscation of 51.100 MT of goods valued at Rs. 3,66,135/-, with penalties under the same rules and section.
2. Alleged Denial of Natural Justice:
The appellants contended that the Commissioner erred by not furnishing copies of relevant documents annexed to the show cause notice and not returning unrelied documents seized during the investigation. The appellants argued that this denial violated principles of natural justice, citing various judicial precedents. The Commissioner, however, observed that sufficient opportunity was given to the appellants to identify the documents required for their defense, which they failed to do.
3. Validity of Penalties Imposed Under Section 11AC:
The appellants argued that penalties u/s 11AC could not be imposed as the provision came into force on 28-9-96, while the relevant periods were 1994-95 and 1995-96. The Tribunal agreed, stating that penalties under Section 11AC could not apply retrospectively.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal found that the department failed to return the unrelied documents seized from the appellants, which prejudiced their ability to prepare a defense. This failure constituted a denial of natural justice, warranting the setting aside of the impugned orders. The Tribunal directed the appellants to deposit the duty amount along with interest within four months and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after returning the seized documents. The Tribunal also held that penalties u/s 11AC could not be imposed for periods prior to its enforcement. The appeals were allowed, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration with directions for expeditious disposal.
-
2009 (12) TMI 787
Issues:
Appeal against de novo adjudication order, Compliance with Tribunal's orders, Non-supply of necessary documents, Jurisdiction of Tribunal to entertain applications directly under Rule 41 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.
Analysis:
The judgment involves two applications filed directly in the Tribunal against a de novo adjudication order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, confirming a duty demand and imposing penalties. The applicants contend that the order of remand and miscellaneous order have not been complied with, and necessary documents have not been furnished, leading to the Tribunal prescribing a three-month time limit for fresh orders previously. The Senior Advocate argues that the Tribunal can entertain the present applications directly under Rule 41 of the CESTAT Rules due to non-compliance by the original authority and non-supply of directed documents, seeking to set aside the de novo order.
The Respondent, represented by JCDR, provides a detailed account of the events leading to the adjudication, including show cause notices, document supply, ex parte orders, and subsequent appeals. The Respondent highlights the non-cooperative attitude of the parties and the provision of voluminous documents to the applicants. The Respondent emphasizes that the impugned orders were passed relying only on provided documents, with those not supplied not considered in the adjudication process.
The Tribunal, after considering submissions from both sides, notes the provision for appeal against the adjudicating authority's order before the first appellate authority. The Tribunal observes that the department disputes the applicants' claims of non-supply of documents, asserting that substantial document copies were indeed provided. It is clarified that the impugned orders were based solely on the documents supplied to the applicants, with those not provided not influencing the decisions. Consequently, the Tribunal finds that the applicants should approach the first appellate authority to address their grievances, including alleged non-supply of documents and non-compliance with Tribunal directions, rather than filing applications directly with the Tribunal. As a result, both applications are dismissed, emphasizing the need to follow the statutory appeal process.
In conclusion, the judgment addresses the issues of compliance with Tribunal orders, non-supply of necessary documents, and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain direct applications under Rule 41. It underscores the importance of following the prescribed appeal process and seeking redressal through the appropriate appellate authority for grievances related to adjudication orders.
-
2009 (12) TMI 786
Classification of imported flavour compounds - classified under CTH 33.02 or 33.01 - benefit of N/N. Sl. No. 119 of Notification No. 21/02-Cus., dated 1-3-02 - Held that: - On a careful reading of the exclusion clause of the notification, it would be clear to qualify for exemption three conditions are to be satisfied i.e., (i) it should be a compound, (ii) it should also be of a kind used for the manufacture of beverages and (iii) the same should have an alcoholic strength by volume exceeding 0.5 percent determined at 20 degrees centigrade. Thus, even though there is no specific mention or explanation either in the chapter heading 33.02 or Section Notes/Chapter Notes in the Customs Tariff from the exclusion clause in Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002, it could be made out as to what the item ‘compound alcoholic preparation’ is - In the instant case M/s GIPL fairly admit in their reply dated 28-2-2007 that the alcoholic strength by volume in the imported flavours in question is exceeding 0.5% and such flavours are used for the manufacture of beverages. However they claim that the Customs exemption Notification No. 76/86-Cus., dated 17-2-1986 explains about “the compound alcoholic preparations”.
There is no doubt that the flavours in dispute comprise of two or more elements, to call them “a compound”. Further, M/s. GIPL have admitted that such flavours are used in beverage industry and the alcoholic strength therein by volume exceeds 0.5%. Accordingly the imported flavours in this case satisfy all the criteria to call them compound alcoholic preparations. M/s GIPL have not advanced any other argument to substantiate their claim that the imported flavours are not compound alcoholic preparations.
The imported flavours impugned in the show cause notice are compound alcoholic preparations and the same are not entitled to concessional rate of duty as provided in Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002 and accordingly, M/s GIPL are liable to pay the differential duty in respect of those flavours.
Commissioner may examine if the appellant was aware of the misdeclaration involved and yet did not bring the same to the notice of the authorities and facilitated misdeclaration of the description of the goods - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2009 (12) TMI 785
Issues:
1. Entitlement to credit for using capital goods exclusively for exempted goods.
2. Non-receipt of inputs sent to job worker within the required period.
Analysis:
1. The case involved two issues. The appellants used capital goods exclusively for exempted goods, leading to a denial of credit of Rs. 8691. The consultant for the appellants argued that the amount had been paid back promptly upon detection by the department, with the appellants maintaining a higher credit balance throughout. Citing a decision from the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, it was contended that no penalty or interest should be imposed. The Tribunal found that since the appellants had promptly paid back the amount and had a higher credit balance, they had not wrongly utilized the credit. Therefore, the penalty and interest levied by the lower authorities were set aside.
2. Regarding the second amount of Rs. 12,346 related to inputs not received back from the job worker within the required period, the consultant argued that the amount was paid promptly after being pointed out by the department. It was emphasized that this was not a case of wrongful utilization of credit, as the appellants consistently maintained a higher credit balance. The Tribunal referred to a previous case and concluded that while there was no proposal for confiscation, a penalty could be imposed under Rule 15(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, up to the maximum limit of Rs. 10,000. As there was no finding of suppression and the appellants did not wrongly take or utilize the credit, the interest and penalty imposed were set aside. However, a token penalty of Rs. 2000 was determined under Rule 15(1) to meet the ends of justice, resulting in the appeal being partly allowed.
-
2009 (12) TMI 784
Issues involved: Determination of duty payment on diesel used for electricity generation and distribution to residential colony.
Summary:
Issue 1: Duty payment on diesel for electricity generation and distribution
The appeal focused on the requirement for the assessee to pay duty on diesel used for generating electricity for distribution to a residential colony. The authorities contended that the diesel was used for both the factory and the residential colony without evidence of a distinction in consumption. The appellant argued that their accounts clearly showed duty paid on high-speed diesel used for electricity generation for the residential colony. The appellant also highlighted the lack of examination of records to determine the units of electricity consumed by the residential colony. The Tribunal found that the appellant maintained separate records for duty paid diesel and units of electricity supplied to the residential colony, which were not properly examined by the authorities. The failure to confront a crucial report during the enquiry and the lack of discussion on this violation of natural justice led the Tribunal to allow the appeals of the appellant.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2009 (12) TMI 783
Issues involved: Appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order, cross objection connected to the appeal.
Summary:
The case involved a dispute regarding the procurement of Polyester Yarn and Viscose Yarn without payment of duty u/s Notification No.43 of 2001. The respondents were directed to pay an amount for not corresponding to SION norms. The party filed a refund claim, which was rejected. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, stating it was a case of refund of duty paid by mistake, not a refund of Cenvat Credit or rebate of excise duty. The Department appealed against this decision.
Upon hearing the submissions, it was noted that SION norms are based on average consumption in the industry, and actual consumption may vary. The use of duty-paid Cenvatable inputs in the manufacture of export products was acknowledged, and it was clarified that such inputs need not suffer duty. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the refund claim was upheld, and the appeal by the Department was rejected. The cross objection supporting the Commissioner (Appeals) order was also disposed of.
The judgement was delivered on 29-12-2009 by Shri M. Veeraiyan, J.
-
2009 (12) TMI 782
Issues:
- Stay petitions for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty under Section 114(i) of Customs Act, 1962 post-acquittal by Special Judge for Economic Offence.
Analysis:
The case involved three stay petitions seeking waiver of pre-deposit of penalties of Rs. 2 lakhs each imposed under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The applicants were acquitted by the Special Judge for Economic Offence, Hyderabad. The counsel for the applicants argued that the acquittal establishes a prima facie case for the waiver of pre-deposit of penalties. On the contrary, the Departmental Representative contended that the acquittal does not affect the penalty imposed under Section 113 of the Customs Act, as it pertains to abetment of an act rendering goods liable for confiscation. The issue of acquittal and penalty imposition were argued to be independent matters.
Upon reviewing the findings of the Special Judge for Economic Offence, which specifically acquitted the applicants for certain offences under the Customs Act, the Tribunal noted that the appellants were penalized under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. Considering the acquittal by the Special Judge for the specific offence indicated in the order, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants had established a case for the waiver of pre-deposit of penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority. Consequently, the application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalties was allowed, and the recovery was stayed pending the disposal of the appeals.
This judgment highlights the significance of the acquittal by the Special Judge for Economic Offence in relation to the penalty imposed under the Customs Act. It underscores the distinction between criminal prosecution and penalty imposition under customs laws, emphasizing that an acquittal in criminal proceedings can impact the imposition of penalties. The decision showcases the Tribunal's consideration of legal principles and specific findings to grant relief in the form of a waiver of pre-deposit of penalties based on the acquittal by the Special Judge.
-
2009 (12) TMI 781
Issues:
1. Violation of natural justice during adjudication process resulting in unilateral finalization of proceedings.
Detailed Analysis:
The appellant raised a plea of violation of natural justice during the adjudication process, emphasizing that they were deprived of the opportunity to present certain documents and information requested in response to show cause notices. The appellant requested a fair opportunity to reply to the show cause notice and to raise defense before the learned Adjudicating Authority. The counsel for the appellant highlighted the unilateral finalization of the adjudication proceedings within a short span of four months, disregarding the circumstances necessitating a proper opportunity for the appellant to present their case.
The learned DR did not dispute the facts presented regarding the violation of natural justice as outlined in paragraph 15 of the original order. However, the DR opposed the remand of the matter to the lower authority for fresh adjudication.
Upon careful examination of the plea regarding the violation of principles of natural justice, the Tribunal acknowledged the limited time available for completing the adjudication proceedings and the gravity of the matter based on the investigation outcome leading to the issuance of show cause notices. The Tribunal concluded that there was indeed a violation of natural justice that could not be rectified at the appellate stage. Recognizing the appellant's right to a fair trial and the opportunity to present their case, the Tribunal directed the appellant to file a reply to the show cause notice within four weeks and appear before the learned Adjudicating Authority for a fresh adjudication process, ensuring due process of law.
In the final decision, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded both appeals to the learned Adjudicating Authority for a fresh adjudication. It was clarified that the Adjudicating Authority should proceed with the adjudication without granting further time if the reply to the show cause notice is not received within four weeks from the directive date.
-
2009 (12) TMI 780
Issues involved: Failure to re-export goods within stipulated period, demand notice for recovery of duty, rejection of remission request, appeal against rejection.
The judgment dealt with the case of re-imported goods not being re-exported within the stipulated period, leading to a demand notice for recovery of duty. The appellants had re-imported 500 kgs. of Ranitidine HCL USP for re-processing and re-export, claiming benefits under Notification No. 158/95-Cus. The goods were cleared without payment of duty on the strength of a bond and bank guarantee. However, as the goods were not re-exported within the specified timeframe, a demand notice was issued for recovery of Rs. 3,12,324/- along with interest.
The appellants' request for remission of duty, citing the destruction of the re-imported goods in a fire accident, was rejected by the adjudicating authority. Subsequently, the Commissioner (Appeals) also dismissed the appeal, rejecting the contentions of the appellants on both merits and limitation grounds. The main plea raised by the appellants was regarding the limitation under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.
The Tribunal held that the plea of time-bar under Section 28(1) could not be accepted in this case. It was emphasized that the issue at hand pertained to the failure to fulfill conditions of an exemption notification, rather than non-levy, short levy, or erroneous refund covered by Section 28. The appellants were also reminded of their commitment in the bond to pay the duty leviable on the goods at the time of importation, had it not been for the exemption. Since no arguments were presented on merits, and the plea of time-bar was deemed meritless, the impugned order was upheld, and the appeal was rejected.
This judgment highlights the importance of complying with the conditions of exemption notifications and fulfilling commitments made in bonds while dealing with re-imported goods. It also clarifies the distinction between issues of limitation under Section 28 and failure to meet exemption conditions.
-
2009 (12) TMI 779
Issues:
Violation of customs law by loading container on vessel without shipping bills and LEO; Excessive penalty imposed on shipping line.
Analysis:
The appeal was filed by a shipping line accused of loading containers on a vessel without shipping bills and LEO, violating Section 40 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant argued that they acted on the directions of the CHA and exporter, who instructed them to load the goods on a specific vessel. The adjudicating authority had exonerated the exporter and CHA, imposing penalties solely on the shipping line. The appellant contended that the penalty was excessive and requested leniency in its quantum. Conversely, the SDR supported the penalty, citing similar cases where penalties were upheld. The Member found that the shipping line failed in its duty to load containers with proper documentation under Customs supervision, thus breaching customs law and warranting a penalty. The key consideration was determining the appropriate penalty amount.
In a significant reference, the Member cited a case involving M/s. CSAV Group Agencies (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, where the High Court of Bombay reduced a penalty for a technical breach from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 2 lakhs. Drawing parallels, the Member noted that the shipping line eventually obtained the necessary shipping bills and LEO. Following the High Court's precedent, the Member reduced the penalty imposed on the shipping line to Rs. 2 lakhs. The decision to lower the penalty was based on the principle established in the referenced case, acknowledging the technical nature of the breach and the subsequent compliance by the shipping line. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed, providing consequential relief to the shipping line.
-
2009 (12) TMI 778
Issues:
Reduction in penalty imposed by Revenue against unaccounted scrap generated during manufacturing process.
Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging the reduction in penalty to Rs. 10,000 imposed on the respondent. The Revenue argued that unaccounted scrap of 9875 kgs found during a factory visit amounted to suppression of facts to evade duty. The Revenue cited relevant case laws to support its contention. On the other hand, the respondent contended that they did not account for the scrap as it was an intermediate product never cleared or required to be accounted under Central Excise Rules. The respondent also argued that the department was informed about the use of certain plastic waste exempted from duty. The penalty imposed on the Director was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). The respondent further highlighted compliance with Notification No. 5/98-C.E. conditions and cited a relevant case law to support their argument.
The Tribunal analyzed the submissions of both parties and found no evidence of intent to evade duty by the respondents. In the absence of mens rea, the Tribunal held that the respondents were not liable for any penalty under Section 11AC. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the appeal by the Revenue. The judgment was pronounced in court on 7-12-2009.
-
2009 (12) TMI 777
Issues:
1. Acceptability of transaction value and inclusion of other charges.
2. Rejection of 20% discount claim by the authorities.
3. Interpretation of agreement terms regarding the quantity requirement for discount eligibility.
Analysis:
1. The case involved M/s. Sabcol Concepts engaged in importing Dyestuffs for the leather industry from a related supplier. The transaction value was under scrutiny, leading to loading of trade discount and local agency commission by the Dy. Commissioner. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the loading of transaction value by 30%, which was challenged before the Tribunal. The Tribunal remanded the case for fresh decision, and the Commissioner (Appeals) again upheld the loading of value by 30%. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, found that the claim for a 20% discount was wrongly rejected as the assessees had fulfilled the agreement's requirement of lifting 60 tons within the specified period. The reliance on the fax stating a 100-ton requirement was deemed incorrect, and the Tribunal allowed the 20% discount, setting aside the order loading the value by 20%.
2. The rejection of the 20% discount claim was based on the authorities' belief that the assessees failed to offtake 100 tons of leather dyestuff. However, the agreement terms specified lifting 60 tons within the first year, which the assessees had fulfilled. The authorities' reliance on the fax mentioning a 100-ton target was found to be inaccurate, and the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessees, allowing the 20% discount claim. This decision was crucial in determining the admissibility of the discount and rectifying the incorrect rejection by the lower authorities.
3. The interpretation of the agreement terms regarding the quantity requirement for discount eligibility played a significant role in the judgment. The discrepancy between the actual requirement of lifting 60 tons within the specified period and the authorities' misunderstanding of a 100-ton target led to the rejection of the discount claim. By clarifying and correctly interpreting the agreement terms, the Tribunal ensured that the assessees were rightfully granted the 20% discount, highlighting the importance of precise contractual language and adherence to agreed-upon terms in commercial transactions.
-
2009 (12) TMI 776
Issues: Confiscation of truck chassis under Customs Act, imposition of fine and penalty, compliance with licensing regulations, re-export of goods, determination of penalty amount.
Confiscation of Truck Chassis: The Commissioner of Customs confiscated a truck chassis valued at Rs. 26,99,046 under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. The importer was given the option to redeem the goods by paying a fine of Rs. 2.00 lakhs and re-exporting the goods within 30 days. The confiscation was based on the importer not possessing an approved R&D facility and not being a vehicle or auto component manufacturer.
Compliance with Licensing Regulations: The importer argued that they were engaged in manufacturing motor vehicles with an R&D facility, as evidenced by their registration certificate. They contended that registration of R&D facility was not a specified condition under the licensing notes. The department did not dispute the importer's manufacturing activities or R&D undertakings.
Re-Export of Goods and Penalty Imposition: The appellant re-exported the vehicle as per the Commissioner's order, paying the fine and pre-depositing the penalty under Section 129E of the Customs Act. The Tribunal found that the appellant voluntarily complied with the redemption condition and upheld the fine and penalty imposed by the Commissioner as a separate penal measure under Section 112(a) of the Act.
Determination of Penalty Amount: The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner's discretion in determining the penalty amount of Rs. 50,000 was reasonable, considering the circumstances of the case. The appellant failed to provide exceptional grounds to challenge the penalty or fine, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal upheld both the fine and penalty in this case, as they were found to be appropriately imposed by the Commissioner.
-
2009 (12) TMI 775
Issues:
Interception of truck near Indo-Nepal Border, seizure of iron scrap, confiscation order, imposition of penalties, appeal against Commissioner's decision.
Interception and Seizure:
Customs Officers intercepted a truck near the Indo-Nepal Border carrying iron scrap. Two individuals were found in the truck, and the scrap was seized along with the truck. Statements were taken from the driver, the accompanying person, and the owner of the goods. The driver claimed the scrap was from a local source, while the accompanying person mentioned Nepalese origin. The Customs Department issued a show cause notice for confiscation and penalties.
Confiscation Order and Penalties:
The case was adjudicated twice, resulting in an order for the confiscation of the iron scrap and the truck. Redemption fines were set for the confiscated items, along with the payment of customs duty. Penalties were imposed on the involved parties, including the owner of the goods, the truck owner, the driver, and the accompanying person. Appeals were filed against these orders.
Appeal and Decision:
The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the confiscation order, leading to appeals by the Revenue. The arguments presented by both sides focused on the origin of the seized goods, the timing of interception, and the lack of evidence supporting smuggling allegations. The Department emphasized the spontaneous statement of the accompanying person implicating Nepalese origin. However, the Counsel for the respondent highlighted the absence of markings indicating foreign origin on the scrap and the lack of substantial evidence supporting smuggling claims.
Judgment:
The Tribunal analyzed the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The key issue was whether the seized iron scrap was of smuggled origin. The burden of proof lay with the Department as the scrap was not listed under Section 123 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal noted conflicting statements regarding the origin of the scrap and the absence of markings indicating Nepalese origin. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no conclusive evidence supporting the scrap being of Nepalese origin and dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals).
-
2009 (12) TMI 774
Issues:
1. Waiver of predeposit of duty and penalty.
2. Classification of imported goods.
3. Requirement of license for import.
4. Violation of Customs Act, 1962.
5. Stay of recovery pending appeal.
6. Adjournment for clarification from DGFT.
Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case pertains to the waiver of predeposit of duty and penalty amounting to Rs. 4,69,711/- and Rs. 13,70,000/- respectively. The duty demand arose due to the misclassification of goods declared as old/used digital multifunctional machines, which were identified as old and used photocopying machines upon inspection. The penalty was imposed under Section 112(a) for violating Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. The classification of the imported goods under CTH 84433100 was contested, as this category covers machines performing functions like printing, copying, or facsimile transmission. However, the applicants argued that the disputed items, although digital copying machines, were distinct from electrostatic photocopiers falling under CTH 84433930. It was established that the goods did not require a license for valid import, indicating compliance with the relevant provisions.
3. The necessity of a license for import was a crucial aspect of the case, as per the EXIM Policy amendment requiring a license for secondhand photocopiers. The Tribunal acknowledged that the disputed goods, being digital copying machines, did not fall under the category necessitating a license, thereby indicating that the importers had not contravened Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. In light of the above analysis, the Tribunal decided to waive the predeposit of penalty and stay its recovery pending the appeal process. Additionally, since the goods remained in the custody of customs authorities, the requirement for obtaining a waiver of predeposit of duty was deemed unnecessary as per the provisions of Section 129(E) of the Customs Act, 1962.
5. The final issue addressed in the judgment was the adjournment of the Miscellaneous application for the release of goods and the early hearing application to 11-1-2010. This adjournment was necessitated by the pending clarification sought by customs authorities from the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), indicating the procedural diligence followed by the Tribunal in ensuring a comprehensive resolution of the case.
In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI highlighted the nuanced legal considerations surrounding the waiver of predeposit, classification of imported goods, compliance with licensing requirements, and the stay of recovery pending appeal, showcasing a meticulous approach to resolving the complex issues at hand.
-
2009 (12) TMI 773
Issues:
1. Dispute regarding duty payable for the period from September 1999 to July 2000, involving the dismantling of a cold rolling machine and factory closure.
2. Appeal by M/s. National Ceramics (NC) for benefit of dismantling one machine and factory closure relaxation.
3. Appeal by Revenue against Commissioner's decision on factory closure benefits for April and May 2000.
4. Interpretation of Rule 96ZGG and Rule 96ZP(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
5. Application of Rule 962G for condoning failure to comply with special procedure.
Analysis:
1. The dispute from September to November 1999 involved the dismantling of a cold rolling machine by NC. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed the Original Adjudicating Authority to consider NC's intimation about the dismantling. The Revenue challenged this, leading to multiple rounds of litigation. The Original Adjudicating Authority failed to address NC's letter dated 22-9-1999, which clearly stated the dismantling of a machine. As the letter was acknowledged by the department, NC was eligible for duty abatement on three machines instead of four for October and November 1999. The benefit was granted due to the acknowledgment of NC's letter.
2. For the period of April to July 2000, NC claimed factory closure due to financial difficulties, supported by a Chartered Accountant's certificate showing no production. The Commissioner (Appeals) granted benefits for April and May 2000 but omitted June and July. The Rule 96ZGG was incorrectly applied, and Rule 96ZP(2) was relevant for factory closure benefits. The power under Rule 962G was exercised to grant NC relief for the entire period, considering the lack of production and supporting documentation. This decision avoided further litigation and was deemed appropriate.
3. The penalty under Section 173Q(a) was not imposed due to the circumstances and findings of the case. The appeal by Revenue was rejected, and NC's appeal was allowed, with cross-objections also addressed. The judgment highlighted the importance of accurate application of rules and powers by the adjudicating authorities to prevent prolonged litigation and ensure fair treatment for the parties involved.
-
2009 (12) TMI 772
Issues:
Excess stock confiscation and penalty reduction for non-accountal of goods by SSI unit.
Analysis:
The case involves the confiscation of excess stock found at the factory of the appellants, who are manufacturers of fireworks, by Central Excise Officers. The stock was valued at approximately Rs. 22.68 lakhs and seized on the grounds of being liable to confiscation. A show-cause notice was issued proposing confiscation and penal action, without any demand for duty as the appellant was within the Small Scale Industries (SSI) exemption limit for clearances. The Additional Commissioner adjudicated the case, confiscating the excess stock with an option of redemption upon payment of a fine of Rs. 2,50,000/- and imposing a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the appellants. The lower appellate authority later set aside the redemption fine and reduced the penalty to Rs. 5,000/- due to non-accountal of the goods, leading to the current appeal.
The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the decision of the Tribunal in previous cases such as Shakti Thamba Tar Pvt. Ltd. and Shanti Fastners, where confiscation of goods from SSI units not demanded duty was set aside. The Tribunal's decision in Shanti Fastners was upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Following the precedents set by these cases, the appellate tribunal upheld the impugned order and rejected the appeal.
In a separate judgment by Member (T), it was noted that while intention to evade duty is not essential for confiscation and penalty under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, cases of non-accountal of production and removal of goods without proper documentation can justify confiscation and penalty. However, there have been instances of leniency towards small scale manufacturers operating within exemption limits, with cautions to maintain proper accounts and clear goods under proper documentation. In the current case, the lower appellate authority's lenient view in reducing the penalty to a token amount of Rs. 5,000/- was considered appropriate given the circumstances, leading to the agreement on rejection of the appeal and dismissal of cross-objection.
In conclusion, the judgment upholds the decision to set aside the redemption fine and reduce the penalty for non-accountal of goods by the SSI unit, in line with previous precedents and leniency shown towards small scale manufacturers within exemption limits.
-
2009 (12) TMI 771
Issues Involved:
1. Classification and excisability of goods manufactured by M/s. Harmony and M/s. Maya.
2. Demand of duty and limitation period.
3. Bona fide belief and suppression of facts.
4. Penalty and interest under the Central Excise Act, 1944.
5. Confiscation and redemption fines.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Classification and Excisability of Goods:
The Tribunal remanded the matter to re-determine the classification of furniture supplied to hotels, cafeterias, and offices, leaving the question of the manufacturer's liability for duty open. It was held that FRP sections and FRP/POP statues are not classifiable under 3925 and 9618, and are non-excisable. Furniture and props supplied to studio sets from Harmony and Parade were excluded from Chapter 9404.00 and certain items were not classifiable under 9403.00. The adjudicating authority upheld the demand of duty on furniture manufactured on a job work basis for various divisions.
2. Demand of Duty and Limitation Period:
The adjudicating authority dropped the demand of Rs. 1,78,031/- on the grounds of limitation, finding that the assessee was under the bona fide belief that their goods were non-excisable. The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting that the majority of the goods were treated as non-excisable and the assessee had consistently contested the excisability of their products since 1993-94.
3. Bona Fide Belief and Suppression of Facts:
The Tribunal found that the assessee had a bona fide belief regarding the non-excisability of their goods, supported by previous Tribunal decisions and the longstanding practice of not paying duty on set properties, artistic furniture, and in situ furniture. The adjudicating authority cited various judicial precedents to support the conclusion that the extended period of limitation was not applicable due to the bona fide belief held by the assessee.
4. Penalty and Interest under the Central Excise Act, 1944:
The adjudicating authority dropped the proposals for personal penalties under Rule 209A, and the Tribunal set aside the penalties, confiscation, and redemption fines imposed, ordering that they may be re-determined if found liable in the remand proceedings. The Tribunal agreed with the adjudicating authority that no facts or circumstances indicated deliberate avoidance of duty by the assessee.
5. Confiscation and Redemption Fines:
The Tribunal set aside the confiscation and redemption fines imposed by the adjudicating authority, ordering that they may be re-determined if found liable in the remand proceedings. The adjudicating authority's findings on the non-excisability of certain goods and the bona fide belief of the assessee were upheld.
Conclusion:
The appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected, and the cross-objection filed by the respondent in support of the impugned order was disposed of. The Tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority's findings on the classification and non-excisability of certain goods, the bona fide belief of the assessee, and the dropping of the demand on the grounds of limitation. The penalties, confiscation, and redemption fines were set aside, with the possibility of re-determination in the remand proceedings.
-
2009 (12) TMI 770
Reversal of CENVAT credit - availment of Value Based Advance Licence (VBAL) Scheme - fulfillment of export obligation - input stage credit not to be taken u/r 56A or Rule 57A of the CER 1944 - Held that:- Each of the exports made under the VBAL was converted into one made under QBAL. There is no bar on availment of credit under N/N. 204/92 governing holders of the QBAL.
In the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires (P) Ltd. v. CCE [1995 (12) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], reversal of credit taken on inputs and exemption being claimed in the finished product under a notification has been approved by the Apex Court holding that claim for exemption cannot be denied on the ground that the assessees had taken credit on duty paid inputs used in the manufacture of the goods in the event of reversal of the credit taken.
Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
............
|
9911796707
