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 Haldiram India Pvt. Ltd., Shri ML Agarwal, Director Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi

2016 (2) TMI 248 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

SSI Exemption - Interpretation of notification 8/2002-CE dated 01/3/2002 existed prior to the Notification which came into effect on 01/3/2003 - suppression of facts - bifurcation of exempted goods to two categories - Penalty imposed - Held that:- On perusal of both notifications we find that the clause in the Notification pertaining to calculation of aggregate value in regard to exempted goods is clearly worded and does not give reason for any doubt. The condition for availing exemption is the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on whether exempted goods have to be included while calculating the aggregate clearances applicable for the preceding financial year.

Moreover, the authorities below have observed that the appellant has bifurcated the exempted goods to two categories. Items like badam-summer sip and Thandai are seen declared in the ER-I return. Whereas certain other exempted goods like Orange Crush, Aam Pannaa, Lime Crush etc. are not declared in the ER-I returns at all. It is the case of Department t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ow that there has been suppression of facts on the part of the appellant. This being so, though the duty and penalty was paid before the issuance of show cause notice, we are not inclined to set aside the penalty imposed. With regard to the penalty imposed on Shri M.L. Agarwal, Director, except for his statement there is no other evidence placed before us. There is no evidence that he was directly involved in keeping the accounts. We therefore set aside the penalty imposed. - Excise Appeal Nos. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tion No. 8/2003-CE dated 01/3/2003 which granted exemption on first clearances upto an aggregate value of ₹ 100 lakhs made on or after first day of April in any financial year provided the conditions are satisfied. One of the condition was that the aggregate value of clearances in the preceding year should not be more than 300 lakhs. It was also provided in para 3 of the Notification that the value of clearances of exempted goods was not required to be excluded for the purpose of determini .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ce was issued which resulted in the order-in-original ordering appropriation of the duty paid and imposing equal amount of penalty besides levy of interest. An option was given to the appellant to pay a penalty of equal to 25% of the said duty, subject to condition that interest and such penalty is paid within 30 days of receipt of the orders. The amount of ₹ 4 lakhs paid/ debited was appropriated towards penalty, subject to payment of interest within 30 days of receipt of order. A further .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he industry as to whether the value of exempted goods has to be included while computing the aggregate value of clearances. This confusion was put to an end by CBEC by its Circular No. 733/49/2003-CX dated 06/08/2003. That the issue involves interpretation of Notification and that there is no suppression on the part of the appellants. Further that appellants paid duty of ₹ 16 lakhs and also ₹ 4 lakhs towards penalty. He argued that since the appellants had paid the amount even prior .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

more than 300 lakhs. The contention of the appellant that as per notification there was a doubt as to whether the clearances of exempted goods should also be taken into account to calculate the aggregate clearances is only an attempt to wriggle out of the liability. He pointed out that the appellant had not declared some of the exempted goods viz. Orange Crush, Aam Pana, Lime Crush etc. in the monthly returns and this amounted to suppression of facts. He submitted that the penalty imposed was l .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

arances made of exempted goods and accordingly availed the benefit of Notification. This Notification 8/2002-CE was superseded by Notification 8/2003-CE which did not have the condition that the clearances of exempted goods cannot be included for calculating aggregate value of clearances to avail the quantity-wise benefit of the Notification. We are not able to accept this argument as it is without any merits. On perusal of both notifications we find that the clause in the Notification pertainin .....

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