GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (8) TMI 491 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

2016 (8) TMI 491 - CESTAT HYDERABAD - 2016 (344) E.L.T. 466 (Tri. - Hyd.) - Job-work - Invokation of extended period of limitation - recovery of duty on finished goods destroyed - allegation of suppression as there was delay on the part of appellant to furnish details - Held that:- it is apparent that the appellants did not possess the requisite information called for by the department. In spite of their best efforts they could not get the information from NCCL. It is seen that only after issuan .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rther the show cause notice has accepted the figures taken as basis for claim of insurance made by NCCL for raising the demand of duty. In such circumstances, the appellants cannot be attributed with any intention to evade payment of duty. Further after receiving the information, the revenue has been in its bureaucratic slumber for more than a year to issue the show cause notice. As there is no evidence in the present case to establish willful suppression with intention to evade payment of duty, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

turers of Sugar Confectionery and Chocolate falling under CET 1704 9030 and 1806 9020. They are undertaking job work activities on behalf of M/s Nutrine Confectionary Company Ltd (NCCL). The appellants are manufacturing and clearing goods on behalf of NCCL on payment of appropriate duties. During the intervening night of 24-03-2009 and 25-03-2009, a major fire accident took place in the premises and raw materials, packing materials and finished goods were destroyed. On 25-03-2009 itself, the app .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

led for information regarding details of value of goods etc destroyed in fire. As the information sought was available only with NCCL, the appellant requested NCCL to furnish details. Appellant could not supply the information to department as NCCL did not give the details to appellant even after making several requests. The Range Officer, issued summons to Sr. Manager NCCL and chairman of appellant. Thereafter information was furnished by NCCL. 2.2 The department then issued a show cause notice .....

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 and imposed penalty of ₹ 2,37,974/- besides imposing personal penalty of ₹ 5000/- on the Chairman & Managing Director under Rule 27 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 . 2.3 The appellants carried the issue in appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the order impugned herein upheld the demand, interest and penalty. However, the option topay 25% of duty as penalty as per proviso to Section 11AC was given. The separate penalty imposed on the Chairman/ M.D of appellant was set aside. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

legation of suppression is that there was delay on the part of appellant to furnish details called for by the Range Superintendent. Though the appellant had made all efforts to get the requisite details from NCCL, the same was not given to the appellant by NCCL. The details were furnished by NCCL only after summons was issued to them by Department. The appellant could not furnish the details only because the information was not available with appellant. That after receiving the information from .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

part of the appellant. He adverted to Para 9.3 of the impugned order and argued that even after repeated reminders the appellant did not furnish the details called for. Letters were sent on 26-03-2009, 14-10-2009 and 06-01-2010. The information was received only on 06-04-2010. Such information was received only after issuing summons to Shri. Chandra Mouli Reddy, Sr. Manager NCCL and Sh. B.K.Gurbani, MD of the appellant. The appellants also did not reply to the show cause notice. That, therefore .....

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 being job workers, the claim for insurance was made by NCCL. It is apparent that the appellants did not possess the requisite information called for by the department. For the same reason they could not file reply to the show cause notice. Even if they submitted any reply, they could only ask for further time to furnish details. In spite of their best efforts they could not get the information from NCCL. It is seen that only after issuance of summons by the Department, has NCCL woke .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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