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 →

M/s Purbanchal Alloys Limited Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise

2015 (12) TMI 1207 - MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT

Refund claim - fixation of Special Rate in respect of its product, namely, Ferro Silicon for the year 2011-12 representing the actual value addition - notification No. 17/2008 CE dated 27.3.2008 (as amended vide Notification No. 31/2008 CE dated 10.06.2008) - reduction of entitlement from 100% to 39% - Non production of relevant documents - Held that:- Union of India, could not point out anything further except what is provided in the affidavit-in-opposition whereas the petitioner company has as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

thin a period of 4 (four) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - WP (C) No. 39 of 2015 - Dated:- 26-5-2015 - Uma Nath Singh, CJ And T. Nandakumar Singh, JJ. For Petitioner : Mr N Das Gupta, Adv For the Respondents : Mr R Deb Nath, CGC JUDGMENT ( UN Singh, CJ ) We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the pleadings of the writ petition. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 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

o Silicon for the financial year 2011-12 in terms of Para 2.1 of the Notification No. 17/2008- Central Excise dated 27.03.2008, as amended by the Notification No. 31/2008-Central Excise dated 10.06.2008. It is the case of the petitioner that the claim for fixation of Special Rate in respect of its product, namely, Ferro Silicon for the year 2011-12 representing the actual value addition was submitted to respondent No.1 way back on 29.09.2011 and 01.11.2011 in terms of the aforesaid notifications .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ipulated period of three months from the date of receipt of the application. In the instant case, the Original Application was filed on 29.09.2011. The Balance Sheets and other related certificates were submitted on 01.11.2011. The said documents were admittedly received in the office of respondent No. 1 on 14.11.2011. Therefore, as per aforesaid provisions of law, respondent No. 1 was under obligation to decide the claim on or before 14.02.2012. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner, submits that u .....

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 of purchase of raw materials. Therefore, there was no credit available on that count. It is also the submission of learned counsel, that when the goods after production were to be moved as finished goods, the petitioner company had paid 100% excise duty. However, as per the notification of 2008, only a claim of 39% exemption was maintainable. Thus, when the company made an application with certificate of statutory auditor in favour of its claim for higher exemption to the Commissioner of Custo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and therefore, the Commissioner was required to take decision on that basis, instead of demanding fresh documents. Learned counsel for the petitioner, also referred to para 9 of the petition to argue that the company has already supplied essential documents required for verification of the certificate and balance sheet by the Customs and Central Excise authority. The said para states as under: That there is no provision of law which requires that the petitioner should produce their private reco .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

al of the excisable commodity were always made available to the Department by the petitioner on a monthly basis mandatorily. Sale value, value of raw materials consumed, opening and closing stock were already available with the Respondent Authorities as mentioned above. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand, referred to para 12 of the affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of respondents No. 1, 2 & 3. The said paragraph is also reproduced as: 12. That as regard statement made in pa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t the rules do no prescribe statutory records‟ shall not be construed that no records has to be maintained. Every assessee shall maintain private records. (ii) The rules which requires certain records to be maintained, are self contained and they specify the minimum information that an assessee MUST enter in his record; (iii) Every assessee shall on demand make available to the Range officer duly empowered by the Government of India/Commissioner of Central Excise (a) the records maintained .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

et is consolidated and as such detailed cross checking could not be made for fixation of special rate which is a mandatory requirement. Hence, details breakup like Raw materials/Packing materials Ledgers/invoices/register, Freight Ledger, Sale Invoices, Transit Insurance etc. which is available with the petitioner only is mandatory for taking into consideration for fixation of special rate. As stated by the petitioner that statutory records namely RG-1 showing daily production and clearance, ope .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

closing stock is reflected there, but no entry of value which is necessary for fixation of special rate. In RG-23 only Cenvatable raw materials is available, in fixation of special rate both Cenvatable and non-cenvatable raw materials is necessary. The petitioner is trying to mislead this Hon‟ble Court on furnishing wrong information and it is stated that Central Excise invoices reflecting sale and removal of the excisable commodity are not satisfying the requirement of fixation of special .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

value, value of raw materials, opening and closing stock etc were all along available with the Range Office as the same were mandatorily submitted by the petitioner to the Central Excise Range Office on a monthly basis without fail. Neither there is any statutory provision nor are there any departmental instructions in force for maintenance and/or production of private records to the Central Excise Authority. This is an glaring example of failure on the part of the respondent Authorities to carr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ara 4 of the impugned Order dated 24.12.2014 clearly mentions that the verification was done by the Shillong Central Excise Division and also submitted report to the competent authority. (iii) That it is transpired from para 6 of the impugned order of the Respondent No. 1 dated 24.12.2014, that the respondent Authority have started making correspondence in the matter after more than 3 years when the petitioner‟s factory, being not finally viable, was already closed. (iv) It is alleged 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

 

 

 

 

 

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