Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2020 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (7) TMI 485 - AT - Central Excise100% EOU - Goods cleared by the EOU for sale within India - duty-free inputs (both imported and indigenous) - Inputs not used for Manufacture of goods - Inputs used for manufacture of exempt goods - Claim of alternative benefit of exemption notification which is not the part of SCN - HELD THAT:- the noticee is not estopped from putting forth other grounds of defence and if he does so,fairness requires that they are also considered. We, therefore, find in favour of the appellant as far as the question as to whether the new exemption notifications not being the subject matter of the SCN can be raised as a point of defence at this stage of appeal. Evidently, if the goods are otherwise covered by another exemption notification and the appellant is entitled to such exemption notification, fairness requires that such benefit should be given to the appellant. Benefit of exemption where the EOU is registered with Excise Department - Scope of CBEC circular given relaxation from registration - HELD THAT:- as far as the exemption notifications issued by the Government are concerned, they are clearly in the nature of sub-ordinate legislations. We do not think that a letter issued by the CBEC can enlarge the scope of the exemption notifications thereby truncating the scope of taxation levied by the Parliament. Even if it is presumed that CBEC had such power, these letters are not subject to scrutiny and review by the Parliament. The exemption given by the CBEC by way of a letter was only to the extent of avoiding two registrations but no exemption has been given with respect to following remaining conditions of the Rules to be followed. In view of this, the appellant is not entitled to benefit of the exemption notification 24/2005-CUS or 132/2006-CUS in respect of the inputs procured by them. Benefit of exemption notification 06/2006-CE dt.01.03.2006 - HELD THAT:- What is claimed is an exemption available for “parts consumed within the factory of production of such parts for manufacture of goods specified at Sl.No.1-20 above” (Sl.No.21, List-5 read with Sl.No.84 of the table). Clearly, there is no dispute with regard to the parts manufactured by the appellant and consumed within their factory. What is in dispute is that the parts which they have procured either by importing or from other indigenous suppliers, those are not consumed within the factory of production. There is no exemption for such parts. Therefore, the appellant is also not entitled to the benefit of exemption notification 06/2006-CE. Imposition of penalties u/r 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - HELD THAT:- The learned Commissioner imposed penalties under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 without specifying as to which particular clause of Rule 25 has been contravened by the appellant. None of the show-cause notices mentioned regarding the violation of particular clause of Rule 25 - the penalties imposed under Rule 25 which is pari materia to erstwhile Rule 173Q is set aside. Imposition of penalties u/s 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- In all the 4 show-cause notices issued to the appellant, penalty was proposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 but while passing the impugned order, the learned Commissioner imposed penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act by observing in para 5.12.5 of the impugned order that the provision of Section 114A of the Customs Act is more appropriate in the present case - it is settled law that any penalty not proposed in the show-cause notice cannot be imposed Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|