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

M/s Fem Care Pharma Ltd. Versus CCE, Chandigarh

2015 (8) TMI 296 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Area based exemption - Denial of exemption claim under Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10/06/2003 - to deny exemption for the period prior to January 2008 on the ground that the appellant has not opted for exemption - Held that:- The appellant is located in area which gives benefit of Notification No. 50/2003-CE i.e. area based exemption. Appellant is manufacturing the final product which is specified in the list for claiming exemption under the said notification. The appellant has filed in th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

by the appellant vide their letter dated 25/01/2008 - As it is the understanding of the Department itself that non-supplying the details of nature of inputs to be used by the appellant prior to January 2008 was not a suppression in that case the denial of benefit of exemption notification shall become fatal to the appellant. - when the allegation of suppression has been dropped against the appellant, the appellant is entitled for benefit of exemption Notification No. 50/2003-CE during the impug .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that the appellant started their unit in the month of April 2006 and filed certain declaration to the Department. Later on 28th July, 2006 they filed a detailed declaration for availing exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE. Vide letter dated 15/01/2008 certain queries were raised to the appellant that they have not supplied certain information for availing the said exemption (referring to the declaration filed by the appellant dated 28/07/2006). The appellant immediately replied to the s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

l period i.e. October 2007 to January 2008 was confirmed by denying the benefit of Notification No. 50/2003-CE ibid. Aggrieved from the said order appellant is before us. 2. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has filed all the required details vide their letters dated 23rd March 2006, 10th April 2006 and 28th July, 2006 about availing of the exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-CE and also regarding what product they are manufacturing and there .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f Herbal Concepts Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Meerut - I reported in 2013 (294) E.L.T. 570 (Tri. - Del.). He also drew our attention to the impugned order wherein the learned Commissioner has observed that there is no suppression on the part of the appellant to hide any facts from the Department, therefore, impugned order is to be set aside. 3. On the other hand learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. Learned AR objected the contention of the learned Counsel and submits that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

alore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 437 (S.C.), Novopan India Ltd. vs. CCE & CUSTOMS, Hyderabad reported in 1994 (73) E.L.T. 769 (S.C.) and CCE & CUS., Indore vs. Parenteral Drugs (I) Ltd. reported in 2009 (236) E.L.T. 625 (S.C.). 4. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. In this case, the facts which are admitted are here as under. 5. The appellant is located in area which gives benefit of Notification No. 50/2003-CE i.e .....

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 raised in response to the declaration filed by the appellant on 28th July 2006 for want of nature of inputs being used in manufacturing of final product which was also provided by the appellant vide their letter dated 25/01/2008. 6. The dispute by the Revenue is that as appellant has not filed the declaration regarding nature of inputs, therefore, they are not entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 50/2003-CE. In this case show cause notice has been issued to the appellant after the n .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eclaration of July 06, that the party was availing of the exemption notification. Not only that, they were filing returns, giving the full description, quantity and clearances of the goods produced by them. There was absolutely no evidence nor any intent to evade payment of excise duty. In fact, the departmental officers should have pointed out at that stage itself that the declaration of July 06 was not complete and that they should give the information with respect to description of inputs. Th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of Notification No. 50/2003-CE for a lapse which could have been easily rectified. It will, therefore, be harsh if any penalty is imposed. Thus, I hold that the party is required to only pay the excise duty as demanded in the show cause notice for the period October 2007 to January 2008. Obviously they are also liable to interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Relevant portion of Section 11AB are reproduced as under : where any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or h .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

non-supplying the details of nature of inputs to be used by the appellant prior to January 2008 was not a suppression in that case the denial of benefit of exemption notification shall become fatal to the appellant. Same view has been taken by this Tribunal in the case of Herbal Concepts Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Meerut - I (supra) wherein this Tribunal has observed as under:- 7. Now, the question requires to be decided is as to whether the appellants non-filing of option prior to 27/06/200 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| 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