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

M/s. Ganpati Rollings Pvt. Ltd. And M/s. Bombay Metal Industries Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi

2015 (11) TMI 1334 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Excess material found during search in the premises of Job worker - appellant has not recorded the excess goods in their statutory records - contravention of the provisions of Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Confiscation of goods - Imposition of redemption fine and penalties - Held that:- On plain reading of the said Rule, the Rule is applicable when the assessee takes Cenvat Credit on inputs/ capital goods. The facts of the case are suc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ntral Excise Act, 1944.

Provisions of Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules 2002 cannot be invoked for confiscation of the goods in the subject matter as held by this Tribunal in the case of BMW Steels Ltd. (2010 (10) TMI 885 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI) and in the case of Sadashiv Ispat Ltd. (2010 (1) TMI 500 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT). Therefore, I hold that the provisions of Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 are not applicable to the facts of cas .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

inst the impugned order holding the goods liable for confiscation. Consequently, the redemption fine and penalties were imposed. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants before me are job worker and are engaged in the activity of conversion of copper ingots into copper wire rods. They are procuring goods or raw materials job worker challan under Rule 4(5) A of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and after processing, the goods were cleared to the principal manufacturer. On 27.6.2007, a search was .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e appellants. Same were adjudicated holding that appellant has contravened the provisions of Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Therefore, the goods are liable for confiscation and consequently, the redemption fine and penalty were imposed. Aggrieved from the said order appellant is before me. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that facts of the case are not in dispute. He submits that the provisions attracted for confiscation for .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the case of Pepsi Foods vs. CCE [2002 (139) ELT 658 (Tri-Del)]; CCE vs. BMW Steels Ltd. [2011 (272) ELT 315 (Tri-Del)]; and CCE vs. Sadashiv Ispat Ltd. [2010 (255) ELT 349 (P&H). 4. On the other hand, learned AR reiterated the finding of the impugned order and submits that it is not in dispute that at the time of investigation raw material as well as finished goods were found in excess and not recorded in the statutory records. Therefore, the provisions of Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

her these Rules are applicable to the facts of this case or not. For better appreciation, Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is extracted herein below:- [RULE 15. Confiscation and penalty. - (1) If any person, takes or utilises CENVAT credit in respect of input or capital goods or input services, wrongly or in contravention of any of the provisions of these rules, then, all such goods shall be liable to confiscation and such person, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding the duty or se .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

alty in terms of the provisions of section 11AC of the Excise Act. (3) In a case, where the CENVAT credit in respect of input or capital goods or input services has been taken or utilised wrongly by reason of fraud, collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts, or contravention of any of the provisions of these rules or of the Finance Act or of the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of service tax, then, the provider of output service shall also be liable to pay .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pplicable to the facts of the case as appellant have not taken any cenvat credit either wrongly or in contravention of the provisions of any Rule. Therefore, I hold that goods in question are not to be held liable for confiscation under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 8. The provisions of Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 were also attracted for confiscation of the goods in question. The provisions of Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 are extracted hereinbelow:- RULE 25. Confis .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ure, production or storage of any excisable goods without having applied for the registration certificate required under section 6 of the Act; or (d) contravenes any of the provisions of these rules or the notifications issued under these rules with intent to evade payment of duty,then, all such goods shall be liable to confiscation and the producer or manufacturer or registered person of the warehouse [or an importer who issues an invoice on which CENVAT credit can be taken] or a registered dea .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

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


|| 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