Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (4) TMI 895

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eral Manager (Commercial) of the appellant company is his statement dated 16.02.2002 on being specifically asked, has stated that Cenvat Credit of the material used for coating was being availed by them. - value of the epoxy coating would be includable in the assessable value of the pipes, irrespective of whether the coating is done inside the factory or outside the factory. However, the Commissioner in the impugned order has not gone into this point for which, in our view, this matter would have to be remanded. If the appellant had availed cenvat credit in respect of the coating material and did not include the value of the coating in the assessable value of the pipes and this fact was not specifically intimated to the Department, it w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f the coating which was ₹ 75,24,832/-. The Show Cause Notice beside demanding the above duty under proviso to section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 also demanded interest on this duty under section 11AB and sought imposition of penalty on them under section 11AC. Beside this, the SCN also sought recovery of duty of ₹ 23,66,195/- on the freight charges not shown in the central excise invoices and recovered from the buyers and also cenvat credit demand of ₹ 1,12,061/- in respect of some inputs, which according to the Department were not admissible. 1.1 The SCN was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore, who vide order in original dated 10.11.2006 dropped the Cenvat credit demand of ₹ 1,12 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that in any case, the duty demand confirmed is time barred, as while the period of dispute is 2002, the SCN had been issued on 12.07.2005 and there is no evidence to invoke longer limitation period under proviso to section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He, therefore, pleaded that the impugned order confirming the duty demand of ₹ 10,82,514/- along with interest and imposition of penalty of Rs. One lakh on the appellant company is not sustainable. 4. Shri R K Grover, Ld. DR, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner in the impugned order and pointed out to the statement dated 16.10.2002 of Sh. Krishan Gopal Mantri, General Manager (Commercial) of the appellant company, wherein, on being a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... question No. 4 as to whether duty paid by the appellant company includes the duty payable on the internal epoxy lining work got done by the appellant company through M/s Vipul Colour Coating, at the land temporarily arranged by the appellant company, he stated that the duty paid by the appellant is inclusive of the duty on internal epoxy lining work done by the M/s Vipul Colour Coating. Sh. Saharan accordingly, pleaded that from this it is clear that the epoxy coating done through M/s Vipul Colour Coating was being done outside the factory. 5.1 He therefore, pleaded that the value of epoxy coating is not includable in the assessable value of the pipes. 6. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... are of the view that the appellant at no point of time, had informed the Department about the epoxy coating of the pipes and, whether they were availing the Cenvat Credit in respect of the coating material. If the appellant had availed cenvat credit in respect of the coating material and did not include the value of the coating in the assessable value of the pipes and this fact was not specifically intimated to the Department, it would amount to suppression of the relevant facts from the Department and extended period under proviso to section 11A(1) would be invokable. 8. In view of this, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Commissioner for de novo adjudication keeping in view above observations. In de novo proce .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates