Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (10) TMI 1920 - CESTAT CHENNAI

2015 (10) TMI 1920 - CESTAT CHENNAI - TMI - Demand of Differential duty - Penalty u/s 11AC - Invocation of extended period of limitation - Held that:- Appellants were issued with SCN alleging suppression of facts for the subsequent period after the above OIO dt. 30.3.2007. Once the department has accepted the RTP price determined by the appellants in the above order, there is no justification for invoking the suppression for imposition of penalty. Further considering the period involved relates .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ourt in the case of Uniworth Textiles Ltd. Vs CCE Raipur - [2013 (1) TMI 616 - SUPREME COURT. Whereas in the present case Revenue has not come out with any evidence on allegation of suppression of facts, whereas it is established beyond doubt that appellants have clearly informed the facts to the department on 19.10.2004 which is on record. - there is no justification for invoking Section 11AC for imposition of equal penalty liable for imposition of penalty under Section 11AC - Decided in favour .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

roleum products and as per agreement with IOCL, the entire products are cleared to IOCL. Appellants have also cleared Carbon Block Feed Stock (CBFS) during the period from Sept 04 to Dec 05. Adjudicating authority in his impugned order confirmed the differential duty demand of ₹ 3,52,31,054/- on CBFS and dropped the demand for other periods. He confirmed the demand for the period from 6.9.2004 to Dec 05 under proviso to Section 11A (1) along with interest and also appropriated entire duty .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

towards penalty within 30 days on 30.1.2015. He submits that till 5.9.2004, the clearances of petroleum products were under bond to IOCL under the warehousing provisions and duty to be paid by the installations was withdrawn w.e.f. 6.9.2004 and duty on petroleum products are to be discharged by refinery itself. He submits that immediately after withdrawal of warehousing provisions, the appellant vide letter dt.19.10.2004 informed the jurisdictional AC on the stock of the goods kept under Bond an .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ority has dropped further proceedings and accepted RTP for computing transaction value and the RTP has been accepted by the department. In the present case, SCN was issued for disputing valuation adopted based on RTP. He drew our attention paras 6 & 6.2 of CPCL's reply to SCN vide letter dt. 19.9.08 to the adjudicating authority at pages 37 to 46 of the paper book and refers to Heading (F) and para-7 of the reply. However, the adjudicating authority in the impugned order at para-20 has a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

where RTP was accepted is not the criteria for invoking the suppression of facts for imposition of penalty for the subsequent period. He relied the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Uniworth Textiles Ltd. Vs CCE Raipur - 2013 (288) ELT 161 (SC). 4. On the other hand, Ld. A.R reiterated the findings of OIO. Regarding appellants relying Commissioner s order dt. 30.3.2007, he submits that adjudicating authority has given a clear findings at para 16.10 (page 31) and stated that this .....

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 to the transitional period when the manner of payment of excise duty on petroleum products had undergone major shift from depot/warehouse to refinery itself w.e.f. 6.9.2004. On a perusal of appellant s letter dt. 19.10.2004, we find the appellants have clearly informed the jurisdictional AC, Central Excise the quantity of stock which was lying in their bonded tanks as on 6.9.2004 and they worked out the duty liability and submitted the documents for each of the product and paid excise duty als .....

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