Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Sanjay Indl Corpn And Another Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai

2015 (3) TMI 592 - SUPREME COURT

Extended period of limitation - Suppression of facts - Manufacturing activity or not - Assessee is engaged in the business of cutting larger steel plates into smaller size and shapes as required by the customers - appellant, under the belief that the aforesaid process does not amount to manufacture did not get himself registered - Held that:- Even as per the Department, there were certain doubts relating to excisability of the process of profile cutting - if the appellant also had nurtured this .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

se, the show cause notice covered the period from October, 1991, to September, 1996 and the show cause notice was given on 01.11.1996. In the said show cause notice when only a period of six months could be covered from the date of show cause notice, it will go back to period from May, 1996 onwards. - imposition of penalty upon the appellant is unwarranted. - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - Civil Appeal Nos. 6999-7000 of 2003, Civil Appeal No. 7142 of 2003, Civil Appeal No. 4530 of 2006 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

g the facts from Civil Appeal Nos. 6999-7000 of 2003. The appellant in this case is running a proprietorship concern which is engaged in the business of cutting larger steel plates into smaller size and shapes as required by the customers. The specification, size, etc., to which the larger size plates are to be cut into smaller sizes are provided by the customers, and the plates are also supplied by them to the appellant. After cutting the plates into smaller plates as per the specifications pro .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ise duty on the said produce. After this was detected by the Department, a show cause notice dated 01.11.1996 was issued to the appellant covering the period from October, 1991 to September, 1996. By the said notice, the appellant was called upon to show cause as to why excise duty as well as the penalty etc., be not charged/ imposed on the aforesaid process carried out by the appellant during the said period as according to the Department it amounted to "manufacture". The appellant su .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

was passed by the Adjudicating Authority confirming the demand of duty raised in the show cause notice. Penalty was also imposed. The objection regarding limitation was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority taking shelter under proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Act holding that it was the case of the suppression and misrepresentation by the appellant and therefore, limitation period stood extended to five years, for initiating action against the appellant. The appellant preferred appeal against .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cture", he abandoned the said argument in the middle. His submission now is confined to the aspect of limitation and penalty which has been imposed. In this behalf, his plea was that the case of the appellant is not covered under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Act as there was no suppression or misrepresentation on the part of the appellant. In order to buttress this submission, the learned counsel referred to Order-in-Original dated 28.07.1998 passed by the Commissioner of Central Ex .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t portion of the said order reads as under: - "However, in computing the total short levy alleged against the unit, their turnover pertaining to mere second sales of M.S. sheets have to be excluded. Turnover pertaining to cutting of M.S. circles and rings and various size profiles will have to be reckoned for calculating their short levy liability. Further in view of the fact that the issue relating to excitability of the process of profile cutting itself was in doubt, even at the higher le .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version