Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

The Commissioner of Central Excise Versus M/s. Mahavishnu Cylinders, Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal

2015 (6) TMI 622 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Duty demand - Violation of Section 11D - Whether the duty demand made under Section 11D of Central Excise Act, 1944 as made out in the Show Cause Notice is correct or not, inasmuch as duty has been charged on the value as per Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the goods removed on invoices as per Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Held that:- First respondent/assessee were supplying cylinders through open tender to IOCL. They have fixed the price of the cylinder at ₹ 300/-. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Central Excise Officers, held that the first respondent/assessee had not collected in excess of over and above what was paid. It is to be noted that the Department had not disputed the eligibility of the SSI exemption availed by the first respondent/assessee and there is no proposal to deny the SSI exemption. When such being the case, because of the error committed by the clerk in generating the invoice, the first respondent/assessee could not be faulted with. In the absence of any intention to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2014 made in Final Order No.40425 of 2014 on the file of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai raising the following substantial questions of law: a. Whether the order of the Tribunal in holding the breakup figures of Excise Duty shown in the invoices issued under Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 as a genuine clerical error is correct or not? b. Whether the duty demand made under Section 11D of Central Excise Act, 1944 as made out in the Show Cause Notice is correc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he financial year 2005-06 under Notification No.8/2003 and cleared the goods at 'Nil' rate of duty and on crossing the SSI exemption limit, they cleared the goods on payment of appropriate Central Excise Duty. Alleging that the first respondent had collected excise duty during the period from 01.04.2005 to 14.05.2005 from M/s.IOCL, but failed to remit the same to the Government Account while availing SSI exemption under Notification No.8/03, show cause notice was issued demanding duty un .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and based on the statutory returns filed by the assessee to the Department. There was no allegation in the Show Cause Notice to the effect that the assessee suppressed the facts. Accordingly, he came to the conclusion that except the erroneous invoice, no amount in excess of the Net Delivered Price (NDP) of ₹ 300/- was collected. This amount was the amount payable on reconciliation while availing exemption and even after crossing the exemption limit. Before availing SSI exemption they have .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Credit available to them. At that time they had programmed their computer to print invoice showing the excise duty component also. At the beginning of the year 2005-2006, they have exercised their option to avail the value-based exemption under Notification No.8/2003. But due to negligence on the part of their staff, the invoices issued after 01.04.2005 and upto 14.05.2005 continued to show the excise duty component. On crossing the exemption limit and starting to pay duty during May 2005 only, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eginning of 2005-06 to operate under SSI scheme; and started paying duty by availing Cenvat Credit once they crossed the exemption limit after 14.05.2005. All the above acts are conscious decisions on the part of the appellant after understanding the provisions of the law and what occurred was only a mistake in the preparation of the invoice by filling up the column excise duty even when availing the exemption. The above position is strengthened, the counsel's argument runs, when the pricing .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ected nothing extra and hence are not liable to pay duty to warrant invoking of the provisions of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. Not satisfied with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Department pursued the matter before the Tribunal, which was rejected by the single Member of the Tribunal concurring with the view of the Commissioner (Appeals) primarily on the ground that there was no material to show that the first respondent/assessee had collected in excess of excise .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d into a contract with IOCL for manufacture and supply of LPG cylinders and as per the said contract and the price is fixed on NDP basis. It is also noticed that the first respondents after crossing the SSI limit during the relevant period, i.e. 14.5.2005, started paying duty from 15.5.2005 onwards. It is not a case here that first respondent have collected in excess of excise duty over and above what was paid. I also find that as per the contract, IOCL paid only fixed amount of ₹ 300/- pe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d at NDP by IOCL which is inclusive of excise duty. The first respondent had charged only ₹ 300/- while availing the exemption and continued to charge ₹ 300/- even after cross the exemption limit. The clerical error, in the consolidated invoices showing break up of excise duty appears to be genuine as the revenue has not disputed the eligibility of SSI exemption. The case law relied by the revenue in the case of Kisan Sahakari Chini Mills Ltd. (supra) is not applicable to the present .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

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


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version