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

M/s Nesco Ltd And Shri Rajesh Upadhyay Versus Commissioners of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-Vadodara-I

2016 (1) TMI 433 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

Demand of interest and penalty - Clandestine removal of goods - Revenue neutrality - Held that:- Appellants removed the semi-finished goods continuously for about three years without payment of duty and the input was cleared as such without reversal of credit in violation of the Central Excise Rule 2002 and the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. There is no dispute that the appellant was liable to pay duty and reverse credit at the time of clearance of semi-finished goods and therefore, the demand of int .....

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 any payment of duty as it is a case of Revenue neutrality. The Adjudicating Authority observed that there is some merits in the argument of the appellant. Hence, the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC is not warranted - demand of duty alongwith the interest is upheld and the penalty is reduced - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. : E/467,468/2012 - ORDER No. A/11666-11667/2015 - Dated:- 16-10-2015 - Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) For the Petitioner : Shri Vin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

appellant company cleared the semi finished goods to their sister unit without discharging duty. They have cleared the inputs as such to their sister unit without reversal of the Cenvat Credit as required in the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. After detection by the audit party, the appellant company paid the entire amount of duty on clearance of semi-finished goods and reversed the Cenvat Credit on inputs during the period from 2005-2006 to June, 2009 time to time. 2. A show cause notice dtd 23.3.20 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lty of equal amount of duty and Cenvat Credit under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act 1944. It has also appropriated the entire amount of duty and Cenvat Credit alongwith interest as paid by the appellant. A penalty of ₹ 25,000/- was imposed on the Appellant No 2 under Rule 26(1) of the Central Excise Rule 2002. By the impugned Order, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order. 3. The Learned Advocate on behalf of the appellants submits that the appellant company transfe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

upon the following decisions: a) Daman Ganga Board Mills Pvt Ltd vs.CE, Daman - 2012.276.ELT.532 (Tri.Ahmd) b) Standard Grease Specialties Pvt ltd Vs. CC, Vapi - 2014.303.ELT.434 (Tri.Ahmd) c) CCE&C, Surart Vs, Gujarat Glass Pvt Ltd - 2013.290.ELT.538 (Guj.) 4. The Learned Authorised Representative on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that the issue of Revenue neutrality would not be applicable in every case. He submits that in the presen .....

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 the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Hero Honda Motors Ltd vs CCE, Meeret - 2011.273.ELT.89 (Tri. Del.) and in the case of CCE Chandigarh Vs Baba Asia Ltd - 2011.267.ELT.115 (Tri. Del.). 5. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find that the Learned Advocate is not contesting the demand of duty, which they have already paid. The main contention of the Learned Advocate is that have paid duty and reversed the Credit, before issue of the show cause notice and the en .....

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 violation of the Central Excise Rule 2002 and the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. There is no dispute that the appellant was liable to pay duty and reverse credit at the time of clearance of semi-finished goods and therefore, the demand of interest is justified. The demand of interest cannot be waived on the ground of the Revenue neutrality. 7. I find force in the submission of the Learned Advocate in respect of imposition of penalty. The decisions relied upon by the Learned Advocate are in the cont .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| 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