Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2023 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 711 - CESTAT NEW DELHIBenefit of SSI exemption denied - repeated/Duplicate bills wrongly considered twice - value of Non-Manufactured goods wrongly considered as dutiable or not - demand of Energy cess - penalty under section 11AC of CEA, 1944 - interest under section 11AA of CEA, 1944 - HELD THAT:- The submission of the appellant that non-manufactured goods were wrongly considered as dutiable goods and duty was confirmed thereon has been examined. During the entire period the value of the goods which were traded and the value of goods, which were manufactured were taken separately and were indicated in the Annexure to the SCN and duty was demanded only on the value of the manufactured goods - no central excise duty was payable at all. It is a well settled principle that manufacture involves change, but every change is not manufacture. Manufacture requires that a new distinct marketable goods should be produced. In this case, the raw material which the appellant was using was steel sheets, as known in the market. What the appellant was producing were MS Shuttering Plates, MS Round Shuttering Plates, MS Crash Bar Plates, MS Hunch Plates, MS Trusses, MS Jali, MS Bar, MS Pier Cap Set, MS Concrete Bucket etc. which are different products known to the market. The appellant is not selling its final products as steel sheets but as these products. There is no mechanism prescribed under the Act for any process to amount to manufacture. So long as a new and distinct commodity known to the market is produced, the process amounts to manufacture and not otherwise - the appellant was manufacturing goods using steel sheets and, therefore, there is no infirmity in the appellant being charged to central excise duty. Demand of energy cess - HELD THAT:- The clean energy cess was chargeable along with the education cess and higher education cess along with the excise duty. The appellant has not produced any law under which it was exempted from payment of clean energy cess. Therefore, this ground cannot be accepted. The appellant contested the demand of interest. Payment of interest is mandatory under section 11AA and, therefore, the same cannot be set aside. Penalty imposed under section 11AC - HELD THAT:- The appellant had not taken registration and had not paid central excise duty nor had disclosed its activities to the department. Its only the investigation which revealed the activities of th appellant. In view of this, the appellant had evaded central excise duty while suppressing facts. Accordingly, the mandatory penalty under section 11AC needs to be upheld. The appeal is partly allowed to the extent of deduction of excise duty on the two sets of duplicate invoices.
|