Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2013 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (4) TMI 255 - CESTAT, BANGALOREDemand on semi-finished herbal extracts - Demand on clearance to DTA - Demand on black phenyl - Penalty U/s 11AC of the Act read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - confiscation and redemption fine - Held that:- Their challenge to the demand of duty on the semi-finished herbal extracts on the ground of non-excisability & job-worked herbal extracts were further processed by Bayir chemicals’ Peenyan Unit and exported or cleared on payment of dutymust fail. - no merit in their alternative claim that the job-worked herbal extracts were further processed by Bayir chemicals’ Peenyan Unit and exported or cleared on payment of duty. There is no evidence to substantiate this claim. - This apart, job work itself is outside the scope of a 100% EOU’s activities (as rightly held by the lower authorities) inasmuch as the EOU’s entire production is meant for export. - Demand of duty confirmed - Decided against the assessee. Retraction of statement - clarification on statement - held that:- Any clarificatory statement should have been given, without delay, to the authority which recorded the original statement. Moreover, there should not be any inconsistency between the original and ‘clarificatory’ statements. In the present case, we have found inconsistencies also. Therefore the view taken by us with regard to the evidentiary value of the Managing Director’s original statement remains intact. Regarding demand on clearance to DTA - brought to any other place in India versus allowed to be sold in India - Held that:- The impugned demand of duty was quantified under the proviso even for the period prior to 11-5-2001, which cannot be sustained. As per the provisions interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court CCE v. M/s. NCC Blue Water Products Ltd.(2010 (9) TMI 13 - Supreme Court of India ), the demand of duty on oleoresins cleared from EOU premises from April 1999 to 10-5-2001 requires to be requantified in terms of the main part of Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act and we shall direct the adjudicating authority to do so. Regarding Demand on black phenyl - Held that:- we have found this dispute to be similar to the one pertaining to semi-finished herbal extracts and, therefore, there is no reason for a different view. Consequently, the above demand has only to be sustained. As regards interest on duty - Held that:- there is no specific grievance against Section 11AB having been invoked for levy of interest on duty. In the result, the assessee is liable to pay interest on duty under the aforesaid provisions for the relevant periods. Regarding Redemption Fine - Held that:- These goods were admittedly not used for the declared purpose and hence liable to confiscation under Rule 25. These capital goods were used for job work on raw materials supplied by a third party, which was not permissible under the EOU scheme and amounted to contravention of Notification No. 1/95-C.E. Regarding Penalty U/s 11AC - Held that:- The proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Act was rightly invoked on the ground of wilful suppression of facts by GNCO/BEPL, for recovery of duty and, for that matter, the requirements of Section 11AC were satisfied.
|