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 →

Balkrishna Industries Ltd. Versus Commr. of C. Ex. & Cus., Aurangabad

2015 (5) TMI 1024 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Includibility of value of flaps in the assessable value of tyres and tubes - Demand already paid by the appellant but same was not paid under protest - whether value of flaps is not includible in the assessable value of tyres and tubes - Held that:- Once the demand is set aside for any reason, amount already paid cannot be held as validly paid and cannot be justified on merit. We are of the view that the findings of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order on one hand holding that va .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ri V.K. Shastri, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : Ramesh Nair, Member (J)]. - The appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. BPS/(408) 181A/13470/2004, dated 16-12-2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Aurangabad, wherein ld. Commissioner confirmed demand of ₹ 4,04,487/- however set aside the demand of ₹ 1,04,507/- and appeal filed by the appellant was disposed of accordingly. The fact of the case is that 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

A of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 from time to time, however one permission letter bearing F. No. V CH 40 (10) 72/TB/92/Pt-1, dated 17-8-1999 contains condition No. (10) i.e. value of flaps should be included in the assessable value of tyres and tubes at the time of clearance. The appellant without taking note of such condition kept on clearing the tyres and tubes without including the value of flaps, therefore investigation was carried out, during which statement of Shri R.M. Kulkarni, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

₹ 1,64,508/- under proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. (b) Confirmation of Central Excise duty amounting ₹ 4,04,487/- and appropriation thereof as said amount already paid by the appellant. (c) Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. (d) Charging of interest under Section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant represented their defence on merit 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

ropriated against the aforesaid amount of confirm demand. The noticee should pay the remaining amount of ₹ 1,64,508/-. (ii) I impose total penalty of ₹ 5,68,995/- on M/s. Balkrishna Industries Ltd. (Unit: Balkrishna Tyres), B-66, Waluj, Aurangabad under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. (iii) I confirm the recovery of interest at applicable rate under Section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944 from M/s. Balkrishna Industries Ltd. (Unit: Balkrishna Tyres), B-66, Waluj, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

emsp;Shri Prashant Paranjape, ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that as regard issue of inclusion of value of flaps and total duty due thereupon was investigated and consequent to the investigation appellant paid duty of ₹ 4,04,487/- and subsequently show cause notice was issued and the same is culminated in the adjudication order. He submits that appellant has defended the case right from adjudication stage uptill the stage of this appeal on merit. Therefore the amount paid by them mu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

egorically held that the value of flaps is not includible in the assessable value of tyres and tubes. It is his submission that once the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) held that value of flaps is not includible in the assessable value of the tyres and tubes, there is no other option except to drop the entire demand on the value of flaps. He submits that present case is against demand proceedings and not case of refund. The refund will arise only consequent to the outcome of this appeal proceedings. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r submits that the value of flaps was correctly includible in the assessable value of tyres and tubes. He submits that issue on merit whether the value of flaps should be included or otherwise in the assessable value of tyres and tubes was not challenged by the appellant and duty paid was not under protest therefore the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly confirmed the demand of ₹ 4,04,487/-. He placed reliance on the judgment in case of Mahavir Aluminium Ltd. v. Commissioner of Centr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ory. It is observed that the appellant after commencement of the investigation paid duty of ₹ 4,04,487/-. After completion of investigation a show cause notice was issued on the issue of merit wherein it was proposed to confirmed demand of ₹ 4,04,487/- and appropriation thereof as said amount was already paid by the appellant and amount of ₹ 1,64,508/- was also proposed to be demanded which was not paid by the appellant. The appellant defended the show cause notice but in the 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

the value of flaps is not includible in the assessable value of tyres and tubes. This part of the order was not challenged by the Revenue therefore the same attained finality. Since both the demand i.e. ₹ 4,04,487/- and ₹ 1,64,508/- were covered under show cause notice and the appellant have been challenging these amounts right from the show cause notice stage, payment of ₹ 4,04,487/- shall be deemed to have been made under protest. Moreover, once the ld. Commissioner (Appeals .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dispatched the same along with tyres and tubes for which necessary permissions was granted under Rule 51A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad. The period involved in the show cause notice is from August, 1999 to 22-2-2001. The details are given as under :- F. No. & date under which permission was granted Validity of the permission Whether permission includes the condition of inclusion of value of Flaps in A.V. VGN 40(10)73 TN/92 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nce of value of the flaps is not required to be added in the assessable value. To support their say they placed reliance upon the case laws cited in the grounds of appeal and at the time of personal hearing. Therefore, the condition laid down for recovery of duty on the value of the flap is not as per the law. The ratio of the case laws cited by the Appellants is squarely applicable in the instant case. The amount already paid by the Appellants cannot be interfered as the same is not paid under .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ession or misstatement of facts etc. Therefore, on the limitation also the case does not survive. As the demand of duty itself is not sustainable, the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC read with Rule 173Q and demand of interest under Section 11AB is not sustainable. 7. In view of the above, I am inclined to accept the contentions of the Appellants. I, therefore, set aside the confirmation of demand worth ₹ 1,04,507/- and imposition of penalty and demand of interest. Since the 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

assessable value of tyres and tubes, the demand of duty on such value of flaps would not sustain irrespective of fact whether such duty was already paid either under protest or otherwise. The entire proposal of demand and confirmation thereof by the adjudicating authority is on the root cause of includibility of value of flaps in the assessable value of tyres and tubes. When the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) held that value of flaps is not includible, such root stands cut and therefore every propo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ess as not borne on any tangible evidences rather there is no averment or any material which can create any doubt on bona fide of the assessee s action. Therefore, the notice issued on 10th September, 2004 as well as corrigendum dated 7th June, 2005 and 28th July, 2005 were without any authority of law and are held to be not justified. Thus, the total sum of ₹ 10,34,098/- was honoured by the physical payment by the party on its own volition i.e. without challenge and protest, which was lev .....

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 notice dated 10-9-2004 as same was due in terms of the circular dated 6-2-2001. When the parent notice of demand dated 10-9-2004 itself was barred by limitation holding the corrigendum as legal, proper or valid, does not arise. Those were without authority of law. To that extent, the submission of the ld. Counsel and the reliance on case laws as extracted above is very much relevant and are apt to the fact and circumstances of the present case. There, the question of penalty does not arise. Th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, jacking them with further liabilities after limitation period is over, is not justified and cannot be maintained and sustained. Therefore, the proceedings started by issuance of show cause notice dated 10-9-2004 and tried to be fortified or enhanced by corrigendum are held to be inappropriate and illegal. Thus, demands and other proposed cause of actions are barred by limitation as provided under provisions of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. 5. After considering the facts and 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

ion 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. It is to be seen that the Revenue authorities have not filed any appeal against the said Order-in-Original nor they have filed any cross objection against such findings of the adjudicating authority as regards the demand is hit by limitation. In the absence of any objection of appeal from the department, the findings of the adjudicating authority as regard the limitation have attained finality. If that be so, any amount deposited by the assessee during the pe .....

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 reasoning is self contradictory. The amount paid was part of duty, demanded in the show cause notice, which was clearly held to be beyond time. Once the demand was held unsustainable, no amount of duty could have been treated as leviable. 6.2 In the aforesaid view, the appeal is devoid of merits raising no substantial question of law. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. In view of the above judgment, it is clear that once the demand is set aside for any reason, amount already .....

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