|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 361 to 380 of 920 Records
-
2010 (7) TMI 876
Whether it was a case of clubbing - Held that:- The matter requires to be remanded to the Competent Authority in the Electricity Board to determine and record the clear findings afresh as to whether it was a case of clubbing or not in accordance with the provisions and observations afore-referred with liberty to the parties to produce any further documents, if they so desire. The authority shall pass a final order expeditiously. The fate of the notices and consequences thereof shall be subject to the final order that may be passed by the Competent Authority. Parties are at liberty to challenge the order so passed in accordance with law.
-
2010 (7) TMI 875
What is the date of commencement of limitation?
Whether the period of three months can be counted as 90 days?
Whether only three months plus twenty eight days had expired when the petition was filed as contended by the appellant, or whether petition was filed beyond three months plus thirty days, as contended by the respondent?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. The period of “three months from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral award” shall be computed from 13.11.2007.
When the period prescribed is three months (as contrasted from 90 days) from a specified date, the said period would expire in the third month on the date corresponding to the date upon which the period starts. As a result, depending upon the months, it may mean 90 days or 91 days or 92 days or 89 days
Thus Thirty days from 12.2.2008 under the proviso should be calculated from 13.2.2008 and, having regard to the number of days in February, would expire on 13.3.2008. Therefore the petition filed on 11.3.2008 was well in time and was not barred by limitation.
-
2010 (7) TMI 874
Issues:
Appeal against dropping of demand relating to 16 invoices based on receipt of goods and credit taken by the respondent.
Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi involved a dispute regarding the dropping of demand relating to 16 invoices by the Commissioner (Appeals). The respondent had received CR sheets from a manufacturer/registered dealer who had allegedly stopped using their premises. The investigation raised concerns about the authenticity of the documents based on which the respondent claimed credit. The show cause notice proposed denial of credit, specifically related to transactions from 16 invoices. The original authority dropped proceedings for denial of credit on these invoices, a decision upheld by the Commissioner.
The department, in their appeal, argued that the respondent failed to prove the receipt of goods due to suspect nature of the documents. However, the Tribunal noted that the show cause notice did not question the accuracy of vehicle numbers in the invoices but rather alleged that the vehicle owners provided incorrect addresses. The Tribunal found that this discrepancy did not cast doubt on the receipt of materials by the respondent. The Tribunal emphasized that the evidence did not undermine the explanation provided by the respondent, and upheld the decisions of the lower authorities.
Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, affirming the orders of the authorities below. The Tribunal found no valid grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings in favor of the respondent. The Misc. Application seeking amendment to the prayers in the appeal memorandum was allowed and disposed of accordingly.
In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the dropping of demand relating to 16 invoices, emphasizing the lack of evidence to challenge the credibility of the respondent's explanation. The decision highlights the importance of substantiating claims with concrete evidence in cases involving credit transactions and receipt of goods.
-
2010 (7) TMI 873
Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods and reduction of redemption fine.
2. Imposition of penalties on importer and CHA.
3. Claim of benefit of Notifications and invoking Section 111(o).
4. Deliberate attempt to evade payment of duty.
5. Misdeclaration of goods and scrutiny of claims.
6. Absolving importer from penalty and challenging the penalty on CHA.
Analysis:
1. The importer and CHA appealed against an order upholding the confiscation of goods but reducing the redemption fine. The issue was common, so both appeals were taken up together. The importer filed a Bill of Entry for clearance of goods claiming exemption of Customs and Central Excise Notifications. The proceedings were initiated as the benefit of the Notifications was found to be unavailable, leading to confiscation of goods, redemption fine, and penalties imposed on the importer and CHA.
2. The importer contended that the claim of Notification benefit was due to a mistake, rectified upon notification, and reliance was placed on relevant Tribunal decisions. The CHA argued that since the penalty on the importer was set aside, their penalty should not be upheld. The department, however, claimed that the claim of Notification benefit was deliberate evasion of duty and invoked Section 111(o) accordingly.
3. Upon perusing the records, the Judge found the department's contention of deliberate evasion unsupported by evidence. The Commissioner's reference to conditions for exemption post-clearance indicated that Section 111(o) was inapplicable. The Judge noted that there was no misdeclaration of goods, and the claim was subject to scrutiny, not equating to misdeclaration. Previous Tribunal decisions were cited to support the finding that confiscation was not sustainable in law. The penalty on the CHA was set aside as there was no justification once the penalty on the importer was absolved.
4. Ultimately, the Judge set aside the Commissioner's order, allowing the appeals. The decision highlighted the lack of evidence for deliberate evasion, the inapplicability of Section 111(o), and the absence of misdeclaration. The decision to absolve the importer from penalty and overturn the penalty on the CHA was supported by the lack of justification and evidence against the CHA.
-
2010 (7) TMI 872
Issues:
1. Rejection of application for remission of duty on inputs in Work in Progress (WIP) under Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules of 2002.
Analysis:
The judgment deals with the appeal filed against the rejection of the appellant's application for remission of duty on inputs in Work in Progress (WIP) under Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules of 2002. The appellant sought remission of duty amounting to Rs. 7,60,309/-, which was denied by the ld. Commissioner citing the inapplicability of Rule 21 to goods not fully finished, such as inputs in WIP. The judgment highlights that all proceedings, including the application for remission, were based on a wrong premise as Rule 21 only provides for remission in cases of goods lost or destroyed by specific causes, excluding inputs in WIP. The Commissioner's order, while addressing various aspects, failed to consider the crucial issue of the applicability of Rule 21 to the case at hand.
The judgment emphasizes that the recovery of Cenvat credit or refund/re-credit is not under dispute in this case. Even if the Order-in-Original (O-I-O) is upheld, it would not empower the department to recover Cenvat credit, which is not the subject matter of the appeal. The judgment clarifies that upholding the O-I-O would be inconsequential as it would not grant any right to the department for recovering Cenvat credit. Similarly, if the appeal is allowed, it would not automatically absolve the appellant of non-payment of Cenvat credit if proceedings have already been initiated or are likely to be initiated separately. The judgment concludes that the application for remission, the O-I-O, and the appeal are not maintainable in this case. In the interest of justice, all three have been dismissed as not maintainable.
In summary, the judgment underscores the incorrect premise on which the application for remission was based, the failure to address the specific issue of Rule 21's inapplicability to inputs in WIP in the Commissioner's order, and the consequential dismissal of the application, O-I-O, and appeal as not maintainable due to the absence of any impact on Cenvat credit recovery or refund/re-credit in the case.
-
2010 (7) TMI 871
CENVAT credit - reversl - separate records not maintained - Held that: - Rule 6 which is the relevant rule in the present case, is pari materia with Rule 57CC in the sense that both require manufacture of two categories of products, namely, one excisable and the other exempted - decided against Revenue.
-
2010 (7) TMI 870
Pre-deposit - CENVAT credit - manufacture of exempt goods - Parts captively used for manufacture of tractor for export - demand - Held that: - the appellants have not made out a case for total waiver of pre-deposit. Accordingly, we direct them to pre-deposit an amount of ₹ 7.5 crores (Rupees Seven crore Fifty lakhs) (50% approximately of the disputed amount) - appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant.
-
2010 (7) TMI 869
The appellant sought out-of-turn hearing for appeal No. E/430/09. The Tribunal restrained authorities from auctioning goods attached as security for adjudication dues, following a judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. The appeal was listed for hearing on 30-9-2010.
-
2010 (7) TMI 868
Issues: Lack of reasoning in appellate order regarding violation of Cenvat Credit Rules.
The judgment addresses the lack of reasoning in the appellate order concerning the alleged violation of the Cenvat Credit Rules by the appellant. It highlights that both the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority failed to provide a clear rationale for concluding that certain goods were not eligible for credit. The judgment emphasizes the necessity of reasoned and speaking orders to ensure legality and clarity in decision-making. It directs the matter to be sent back to the Adjudicating Authority for a re-examination of the evidence, granting the appellant a fair opportunity of hearing. The Adjudicating Authority is instructed to issue a reasoned and speaking order within 3 months, clearly outlining the controversy, the appellant's submissions, relevant laws, and the evidence on record.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of a self-speaking and reasoned order in cases where illegality in the use of goods is alleged. It notes that the absence of clear reasoning in the orders under appeal renders them subject to scrutiny and necessitates a re-examination of the evidence. The decision to dispense with the pre-deposit requirement is made due to the lack of clarity and reasoning in the previous orders. The Adjudicating Authority is tasked with conducting a thorough review of the evidence and providing a fair hearing to the appellant to ensure a just and well-founded decision. The judgment underscores the need for a comprehensive and well-reasoned order to resolve the controversy effectively.
The judgment further highlights the procedural aspect of the case, noting the absence of the appellant during the initial proceedings and the subsequent appearance of the appellant's advocate after the closure of the hearing. It records the presence of the advocate for the appellant and acknowledges the completion of the hearing process. The judgment concludes by disposing of both the stay application and the appeal, indicating the resolution of the case pending the Adjudicating Authority's re-examination and issuance of a reasoned order within the stipulated timeframe.
-
2010 (7) TMI 867
Issues involved: Undervaluation of final product, related person under Section 4 of Central Excise Act, limitation period for raising demand.
Undervaluation of final product: The appellant, engaged in manufacturing bulk drugs, supplied products exclusively to a joint venture company. The demand was confirmed against the appellant for undervaluation of their final product for the period July 2000 to July 2001. The Commissioner held the buyer company as a related person to the appellant, leading to the demand for duty confirmation. However, the appellant contended that the buyer company did not meet the criteria of being a related company as per the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal found that a similar enquiry was raised against the appellant in 1996, which was duly answered, indicating that the entire facts were known to the department. Therefore, the demand raised in 2005 was beyond the limitation period, and the impugned order was set aside on this ground, granting relief to the appellant.
Related person under Section 4 of Central Excise Act: The Commissioner considered the buyer company as a related person to the appellant based on their inter-connected status under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act and Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. However, the appellant argued that the transaction value should only be adopted when related as per specific criteria, which they did not meet. The Tribunal noted that the enquiry raised in 1996 regarding undervaluation of the final product was already known to the department, and the demand raised in 2005 was time-barred. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order on the basis of limitation, without delving into the merits of the case.
Limitation period for raising demand: The Tribunal found that the demand raised in 2005 for undervaluation of the final product was beyond the limitation period. Despite the amendment to Section 4 of the Central Excise Act in 2000, the Tribunal held that the department took five years to issue the show cause notice, indicating no mala fide on the part of the appellant. As the entire facts were known to the Revenue since the enquiry in 1996, the Tribunal concluded that the longer period was not available to the department to raise the demand. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside on the grounds of limitation, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.
-
2010 (7) TMI 866
Issues:
Appeal against imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 without invoking Section 11AC.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Background and Imposition of Penalty:
The appellant appealed against the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 2,93,182 under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, without invoking Section 11AC. The appellant was accused of issuing Cenvatable invoices as a second stage dealer without physically supplying the goods, enabling the beneficiary to avail inadmissible CENVAT credit. The lower authority confirmed the demand against the manufacturer who availed the credit and imposed a penalty on the appellant as well.
2. Contention of the Appellant:
The appellant argued that Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2000 is not applicable to a dealer and that Section 11AC was not invoked in the show-cause notice.
3. Arguments by the Learned DR:
The Learned DR contended that Rule 25 should be read with Section 11AC as it begins with "subject to the provisions of Section 11AC of the Act." The DR cited Tribunal decisions in support of the penalty imposed under Rule 25.
4. Judgment and Legal Analysis:
The Tribunal noted that Section 11AC was not invoked in the case, and the lower authority and Commissioner (Appeals) exceeded the show-cause notice's scope. The Tribunal disagreed with the DR's argument that Rule 25 automatically applies whenever invoked, highlighting the lack of satisfactory answers on the contravened sub-rule. The Tribunal differentiated the cited cases, stating they were not applicable to the present case, leading to the conclusion that the penalty under Rule 25 on the appellant was not legally sustainable.
5. Conclusion:
In light of the above analysis, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellant. The judgment emphasized the importance of correctly invoking relevant provisions and rules while imposing penalties under Central Excise laws.
This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the legal issues involved and the Tribunal's decision in this case.
-
2010 (7) TMI 865
Issues: Disallowance of credit for goods not considered capital goods, imposition of penalty
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata heard an appeal concerning the disallowance of credit amounting to Rs. 18,58,227.51 and the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000. The Appellant argued that the goods in question, including voltage stabilizers, Silicon carbide, Grease pump, Hydraulic Jack, and Industrial Fans, are integral parts of the plant. They contended that the demand was not sustainable. On the other hand, the Revenue asserted that the goods were not capital goods and relied on the adjudicating authority's findings. The Tribunal noted that the Show Cause Notice was issued in 1995, the reply was filed in 1995, and the adjudication order was passed in 2006 after a significant delay of more than 10 years. However, the order did not provide a reason for the delay in granting a personal hearing. Despite the Appellants being heard in 2005, the order was issued in 2006, raising concerns about the process. The Tribunal found that the matter required re-consideration due to the lack of specific findings on whether the goods were capital goods. Consequently, the impugned order disallowing the credit and imposing a penalty was set aside, and the case was remanded to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision after allowing both parties to present evidence. The Appellants were directed to appear before the adjudicating authority for further proceedings. The adjudicating authority was instructed to make a decision within three months after the evidence presentation.
---
-
2010 (7) TMI 864
Issues involved: Interpretation of time limit for taking credit under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
Summary:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI addressed the issue of determining the time limit for taking credit under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The specific point for consideration was whether the time limit should be calculated from the date of entry in RG-23 A Part-II Register or from the date of entry in RG-23 A Part-I Register.
The Tribunal highlighted that Rule 57G clearly specifies the time limit for taking credit, as outlined in sub-rule (5) of the said Rule. This sub-rule states that credit must be taken within six months from the date of issuance of specified documents. These documents include invoices, bill of entry, and others listed under sub-rule (3) of Rule 57G.
It was emphasized that the period of limitation mentioned in sub-rule (5) is based on the "date of issuance of the documents" and not on the entry in RG-23 A Register. The distinction between Part-I and Part-II of RG-23 A Register was explained, with Part-I relating to stock account of inputs and Part-II to duty credit entry book. The time limit for availing credit is to be calculated from the date of issuance of documents related to received inputs, provided they are among those listed under sub-rule (3) of Rule 57G.
In conclusion, the Tribunal clarified that the time limit for taking credit under Rule 57G is determined by the date of issuance of specified documents, not by the entry in RG-23 A Register. The matter was referred to the Single Judge for further decision based on the interpretation provided by the Tribunal.
-
2010 (7) TMI 863
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the respondent company M/s. Ganesh Enterprises is a subsidiary of Ganesh Beedi Works and hence clearances of both the units need to be clubbed and SSI benefit can be denied since the value of clearances exceeded the limit.
2. Whether the wordings used by the appellants on the detergent cakes wrapper would amount to using the brand name/trade name, house mark of some other persons due to which they are not eligible for benefit of SSI Exemption.
Summary:
Issue 1: Clubbing of Clearances and SSI Benefit Denial
The adjudicating authority denied the SSI exemption to M/s. Ganesh Enterprises, alleging it was a subsidiary of Ganesh Beedi Works, thus necessitating the clubbing of clearances. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this finding, noting that both firms, despite having the same partners, were separately constituted, operated at different locations, and manufactured different products. The Commissioner emphasized that no ownership or managerial control existed between the two firms, and they dealt with each other on a principal-to-principal basis. The Tribunal upheld this view, stating that the provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, which pertain to valuation, do not apply to the denial of SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003. The Tribunal found no evidence of financial flowback or interconnectedness beyond common partners, thus dismissing the revenue's appeal on this point.
Issue 2: Use of Brand Name/Trade Name
The adjudicating authority also denied the SSI exemption based on the use of the brand name belonging to M/s. Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works. The Tribunal found that the inscriptions on the detergent cakes, such as "A quality product from Mangalore Ganesh Beedis" and "since 1940," indicated a connection with Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works. This connection suggested that the products were from the House of Mangalore Ganesh Beedis, thus attracting the mischief of Notification No. 8/2003. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in CCE Trichy v. Grasim Industries, which held that using another company's trade name to indicate a connection in trade disqualifies the benefit of SSI exemption. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the matter for a limited purpose of re-quantifying the duty amount for the period during which the inscriptions were used and directed the adjudicating authority to consider penalties based on the revised duty liability.
Disposition:
The appeal was disposed of with the Tribunal upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) on the clubbing issue and remanding the matter for re-quantification of duty and reconsideration of penalties regarding the use of the brand name.
-
2010 (7) TMI 862
Penalties u/s 76 and 77 of FA - violation of provisions of Section 70 of Finance Act, 1994 since the return was delayed by 187 days - violation of Section 68 of Finance Act, 1994 since there was a delayed payment of service tax ranging from 286 days to 194 days - Held that:- The benefit of Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994 cannot be extended to the appellant inasmuch as they were aware of their responsibility to file the return in time and to deposit tax within the period. Having not done so, they have invited the penalties under Section 76 and 77 of the Act. The penalty under Section 76 has already been kept by the lower authorities equal to the demand, though there was a delay of 766 days and by calculating the penalty @ ₹ 200/-per day as per the provisions of Section 76 of Finance Act, 1994, the same would come to ₹ 1,53,200/-.
Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2010 (7) TMI 861
Issues:
1. Whether the demand notice issued to the appellant was within the period of limitation.
2. Whether the service of notice through registered post satisfied the provisions of the Customs Act.
3. Whether the appellant's contention that the notice was not received before the limitation period is valid.
Analysis:
Issue 1:
The appellant contested the demand on the grounds of limitation, claiming that the notice issued on 9-11-93 was not received by them before the expiration of the limitation period on 14-11-93. The Deputy Commissioner held that the notice was within the limitation period, as it was sent by registered post to both the appellant and their clearing agent. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision. The appellant's argument was based on the absence of evidence showing the notice was received before 14-11-93.
Issue 2:
The Revenue argued that the notice sent by registered post on 9-11-93 satisfied the provisions of Section 153 of the Customs Act, which governs the service of notices. They contended that service to the clearing agent also constituted service to the appellant. The Deputy Commissioner's order cited relevant legal provisions and previous cases to support the conclusion that the notice was served properly, regardless of the actual receipt date.
Issue 3:
The appellant presented a certificate from postal authorities indicating the typical delivery time for registered letters. However, they failed to provide concrete evidence of the actual receipt date of the notice. The inward register maintained by the appellant did not specify the date of receipt, and a letter from the appellant acknowledged the receipt of the notice without mentioning the actual date. The Tribunal noted the lack of evidence supporting the appellant's claim that the notice was received after 14-11-93.
In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's argument regarding the limitation period. As the appellant did not contest the demand on its merits, the impugned order was upheld, and the appeal was rejected. The judgment emphasized the importance of proper service of notices under the Customs Act and the burden of proof on the appellant to demonstrate non-receipt within the limitation period.
-
2010 (7) TMI 860
Issues:
1. Utilization of MODVAT Credit on imported turbochargers for duty payment.
2. Reversal of MODVAT Credit on original pair of turbochargers.
3. Applicability of Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
4. Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Act.
Analysis:
1. Utilization of MODVAT Credit on imported turbochargers for duty payment:
The case involved the clearance of a diesel engine by availing MODVAT Credit of CVD paid on a pair of turbochargers imported and fitted into the engine. The engine was damaged during transit and repaired, with a new pair of turbochargers imported and used in the repairs. The appellant paid duty on the engine by utilizing MODVAT Credit of the CVD paid on the new pair of turbochargers. The Tribunal found the appellant entitled to take MODVAT Credit on the imported components and utilize it for duty payment. The clearance of the engine on 27-4-96 after repairs was lawful, and the appellant had paid appropriate duty on the full assessable value using MODVAT Credit.
2. Reversal of MODVAT Credit on original pair of turbochargers:
The department demanded the appellant to reverse the MODVAT Credit taken on the original pair of turbochargers. However, the Tribunal held that the appellant was justified in utilizing the MODVAT Credit of CVD paid on the imported components for duty payment. The lower authorities were deemed unjustified in upholding the department's proposal for reversal of the MODVAT Credit.
3. Applicability of Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944:
The case involved the application of Rule 173H for bringing back the damaged engine for repairs and subsequent clearance without payment of duty. The Tribunal noted that the clearance of the repaired engine without duty payment under Rule 173H was in accordance with the law, and the Revenue had no grievances regarding this aspect of the transactions.
4. Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Act:
The original authority imposed a penalty on the appellant, which was later vacated by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 11AC of the Act. The Tribunal upheld the decision to vacate the penalty, thereby providing relief to the appellant in this regard.
In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the lawful utilization of MODVAT Credit, the compliance with Rule 173H, and the removal of the penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Act.
-
2010 (7) TMI 859
Issues involved: Condonation of delay in filing appeal, waiver of pre-deposit of penalty amount, legality of investigating officer becoming adjudicating authority.
Condonation of delay in filing appeal: The application for condonation of 8 days' delay in filing the appeal was made on the grounds that the appellants believed the main appellants would handle the appeal, causing the delay. The delay was condoned with no objection from Revenue, and the appeal was admitted.
Waiver of pre-deposit of penalty amount: The appellant, M/s. Bansiwala Iron & Steel Rolling Mills, deposited the duty element and sought waiver of pre-deposit of penalty amount. It was argued that the adjudication suffered from legal infirmity as the investigating officer acted as the adjudicating authority, violating the principle that no one should judge their own cause. The Revenue contended that there is no legal bar for the investigating officer to become the adjudicating authority. The issue of legal infirmity in adjudication and the identity of the adjudicating authority were to be examined during regular hearing. Given the prima facie legal infirmity in adjudication and the duty element already deposited, a stay of penalty realization against Shri Saurabh Ghai and waiver of penalty against M/s. Bansiwala Iron & Steel Rolling Mills were granted during the appeal pendency.
Legality of investigating officer becoming adjudicating authority: The argument was raised that the investigating officer should not act as the adjudicating authority due to the principle of natural justice. The need to establish the identity of the adjudicating authority and whether the investigating officer and adjudicating officer were the same was emphasized. The issue of legality in this regard was to be further examined during the regular hearing.
Conclusion: The COD application for delay condonation and the Stay application for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty amount were disposed of based on the orders regarding the legal infirmity in adjudication and the stay of penalty realization during the appeal pendency.
-
2010 (7) TMI 858
CENVAT credit - shapes and sections falling under chapter sub-heading 7216.10 - capital goods or not? - Held that: - the components, spares and accessories of the goods which are meant for Serial No. (i) and (ii) of definition of capital goods, RULE 2(a), are only covered as capital goods as per the definition. Therefore, while it is true that moulds are to be considered as capital goods, because of nature of definition, the shapes and sections which have been used for fabrication of moulds cannot be treated as capital goods - denial of credit upheld.
Extended period of limitation - Held that: - the demand is time barred also cannot be accepted as department was not privy to appellants using the inputs for manufacture of moulds as they have not claimed any exemption in respect of the moulds specifically in their ER I returns - the amount of penalty also reduced to ₹ 2,000/-.
Appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of assessee.
-
2010 (7) TMI 857
Issues involved: Alleged under valuation of final product Concentrated Nitric Acid (CNA) cleared to related unit, applicability of Rule 8 u/s Rule 4, challenge on limitation, interpretation of Section 11A(2B) for duty payment.
Alleged under valuation of final product: Appellants faced show cause notice for under valuation of CNA cleared to related unit. Revenue argued for adopting value as 115% of product cost u/s Rule 8 for related persons. Appellants contended Rule 8 applies after Rule 4, citing Ispat Industries Limited case where Rule 8 applies only for entire production transfer to related units.
Challenge on limitation: Appellants challenged demand on limitation grounds. Adjudicating authority found no suppression or mis-statement due to timely monthly returns filing. Commissioner treated voluntary duty payment as short paid duty u/s Section 11A(2B), imposing interest but no penalty.
Interpretation of Section 11A(2B): Appellants argued against admitted duty liability, contesting duty demand from the start. Commissioner's findings showed no suppression or mis-declaration, hence Section 11A(2B) not applicable. Show cause notice invoked extended limitation period, but appellants contested demand on merits, not accepting short paid or non-paid duty.
Conclusion: Commissioner's order set aside as no suppression found, longer period not justified. Appellants' appeal allowed with consequential relief. Commissioner's decision on limitation and Section 11A(2B) interpretation not upheld due to lack of merit in findings.
............
|
9911796707
