New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (9) TMI 1377 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2015 (9) TMI 1377 - CESTAT MUMBAI - 2015 (329) E.L.T. 573 (Tri. - Mumbai) - Removal/ Shifting of goods from the old factory to the proposed factory (adjacent premises) without payment of duty - Confiscation of goods - Held that:- Technically there are some procedural irregularities committed by the appellants. However, the fact remains that the appellants themselves informed about the shifting of the raw materials, etc. within five days of the shifting, applied for registration within the next t .....

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 redemption fine of ₹ 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) is imposed. Further, we find that whatever demand has been made could have been paid from the Central credit account/PLA and further the same was available as credit on the same date in the adjacent premises.

Further, the revenue themselves have allowed the shifting of the accumulated PLA balance as well as Modvat credit was allowed based upon the appellants request letter dated 11/03/2011. Keeping in view the overall cir .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n, Member (T) And S S Gar, Member (J),JJ. For the Appellant : Shri. Yogesh S Patki, Adv For the Respondent : Shri V. K. Agarwal, Addl. Comm. (AR) ORDER Per: P.K. Jain 1. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of essence and other chemicals. At the relevant time, the main appellant had an unit at LBS Marg, Mulund (West), Mumbai-400 080. The appellant is a subsidiary company of S.H. Kelkar & Co. Pvt. Ltd., as well as the appellant were the Vaze/Kelka .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s located, was handed over to the G.D. Kelkar faction. However, the appellant was permitted to occupy that land till February 15, 2011 and this period could be further extended by another three months by mutual consent. Therefore, in terms of this settlement, the appellant continued operations in the unit located on the land at LBS Marg, Mulund (West), Mumbai - 400 080. Being aware of the fact that the appellant would have to vacate this place, the appellant had started making alternate arrangem .....

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 faced with the situation where its unit at Vashiwali was not ready and it had to vacate the land on which was located its unit at LBS Marg, Mulund (West), Mumbai-400 080. In case, the unit was not moved by February 15, 2011, the goods would have been forcibly removed from the unit. Faced with such a situation, as a last resort, the appellant immediately decided to shift its entire unit to the adjoining place which was owned by its holding company S.H. Kelkar & Co. Pvt. Ltd. The appellant .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

which was adjudicated and the original authority vide order dated 13/12/2012 ordered as under: i) I confirm the demand of duty of ₹ 2044/- in respect of the finished goods, valued at ₹ 19,843/- under sub-section (2) of the then Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. ii) I confirm the demand of duty of ₹ 19,46,355/- on work-in-progress goods, valued at ₹ 1,86,63,930/- under sub-section (2) of the then Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. iii) I confirm the demand of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nfiscation of raw materials valued at ₹ 92,74,238/- under Rule 15 (1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. vii) I order that the interest, as applicable, is recoverable from KFPL under the then Section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944 on the amount of duty confirmed at serial No.1, ii and iii hereinabove. viii) I impose a redemption fine of ₹ 42,00,000/- under Section 34 of Central Excise Act, 1944 in lieu of confiscation of goods mentioned at serial No. (iv), (v) and (vi) herein above .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

#8377; 28,35,369/- (Rs.2044/- + ₹ 19,46,355/- + ₹ 8,86,970/-) on KFPL under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. x) I impose a penalty of ₹ 2,00,000/- on M/s. S.H. Kelkar & Co. Pvt. Ltd., (Noticee No.2) under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. xi) I impose a penalty of ₹ 2,00,000/- on Shri Kedar R Vaze (Noticee No. 3) under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. xii) I impose a penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- on Shri Prakash B Kalbhor (Noticee No.5) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ho upheld the order of the original authority. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants are before this Tribunal. 4. Heard both the sides. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that though technically there has been some procedural irregularities; however, the same happened due to shortage of time and pressure from the family members to shift the goods immediately and vacate the old factory. He further submitted that it is not as if the department was kept in dark they themselves 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

igher education cess. The learned Counsel further submitted that balance available with them far exceeded the duty liability on raw material and finished goods. He also submitted the work-in-progress cannot be considered as excisable goods and therefore, no duty could be charged or can be claimed on the same. It was also submitted that they had no intention whatsoever either to evade the duty or not to follow any rules. He further submitted that the whole exercise was revenue neutral as duty deb .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

/2011. 6. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) reiterates the various points made in the impugned order as also the original order. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. 7.1 We find that technically there are some procedural irregularities committed by the appellants. However, the fact remains that the appellants themselves informed about the shifting of the raw materials, etc. within five days of the shifting, applied for registration within the next two da .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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