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 Madras Aluminium Co. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem

2015 (10) TMI 1698 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Demand of excise duty - goods cleared under Rule 173H and Rule 57F (4) - Instead of repairing or reprocessing, appellants have cleared the excisable goods by using the inputs which were available in from their stock - held that:- Appellants have set up integrated aluminium plant where they have the facility of manufacturing of aluminium products from primary ore stage to the finished goods viz. aluminium Ingots, Rods, Sheets. They also carry out re-processing or remelting of the scrap and this i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

uld have been issued within 6 months whereas the department issued SCN on 10.2.2004. Hence there is no suppression of facts with intention to evade payment of duty. Therefore, demand raised on the goods cleared under Rule173H is hit by limitation and liable to be set aside and equal penalty imposed on the appellant is also liable to be set aside. - appellants are liable for under penalty under Rule 173Q as they have violated the procedure. Therefore, appellants are liable for penalty. In view 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

nge the cause title of appellants name from "The Madras Aluminum Company Ltd." to Sesa Sterlite Ltd. The second MISC petition No.40418 is seeking to change the cause title from the name of the appellant from M/s. Sesa Sterlite Ltd. to M/s. Vedanta Ltd. Appellants produced certificate of Registrar of Companies. Both the applications for change of cause title are allowed. The name of appellant in the cause title is changed from "The Madras Aluminum Company Ltd. to Sesa Sterlite Ltd. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ead of repairing or reprocessing, appellants have cleared the excisable goods by using the inputs which were available in from their stock. Therefore, they have violated the provisions of Rule 173H and Rule 57F (4). Adjudicating authority confirmed duty of ₹ 8,73,015/- and also imposed equivalent penalty of ₹ 10,000/- under Rule 173Q. Commissioner (Appeals) also rejected their appeal. 3. Ld. Advocate submits that appellants are manufacturers of aluminum ingots, rods, sheets. They use .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion once the goods are melted in the furnace. They have supplied the sheets from their fresh stock and also submits that department is demanding duty on the goods cleared under Rule 173H whereas the raw material received under Ruel173H was subsequently cleared on payment of duty. Therefore, duty cannot be demanded twice. He relied on para-41 of the OIO and para 5.4 of OIA wherein admittance of lapse on the part of appellant is recorded. There is no dispute on the fact that re-melted goods receiv .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ith respect to goods supplied whereas processed goods despatched were manufactured even earlier to the receipt of the inputs under rule 57F (4) during the period 13.5.99 to 16.5.99 which clearly shows that the appellants processed the goods for which they supplied from the fresh stock which are manufactured out of their invoice. Therefore duty has been rightly demanded which is also admitted by the appellants. Appellants cleared the goods even before reprocessing was done. Appellants have cleare .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

repaired or reconditioned but has to be re-melted. Therefore once the returned goods are re-melted, it lost its identity. There is no dispute that appellant followed 173H procedure and also filed D3 intimation to the Department. As clearly seen from annexure to SCN the date of receipt of defective sheets is 22.5.99 to 27.5.99 and the date of despatch of processed goods is from 27.5.99 to 2.6.99 which clearly shows that appellants cleared the goods under rule 173H & 57F(4) only upon receipt .....

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