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. Indira Printers Versus C.C.E., Delhi-II

2016 (9) TMI 482 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

100% EOU - Recovery of duty alongwith interest and penalty attributable to inputs - input, i.e., paper procured without payment of duty, used for manufacture of finished product i.e. printed books, sold in the DTA and not exported - pursuant to investigation, appellant deposited central excise duty attributable to inputs - Held that:- in absence of export of printed books, the duty foregone on procurement of the input, namely paper, shall not be eligible for the exemption contained in the Centra .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ent of Central Excise duty has to be paid by the appellant. With regard to imposition of penalty, it is found that the issue involved in the case relates to interpretation of the Notification No. 22/2003 dated 31st March, 2003 and in an identical case, this Tribunal in the case of the appellant itself reported in [2010 (4) TMI 954 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] has set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant. Therefore, the penalty cannot be imposed on the appellant in the given circumstances of the cas .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is a 100% Export Oriented Undertaking (EOU), and is engaged in the manufacture of printed books falling under Chapter 4901 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the period 01.07.2005 to 31.01.2006, the appellant had sold the finished products in the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) in terms of paragraph 06.09 (b) of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-2009. Since the input, i.e., paper procured without payment of duty were used for manufacture of finished product, sold in the DTA and not exported .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

deposited by the appellant was appropriated in the said adjudication order. In appeal, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the duty demand confirmed in the Adjudication Order. Hence the present appeal before this Tribunal. 4. Shri R.K. Hasija, the ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that since the raw-material/input supplier is the manufacturer of paper, the duty liability, if any, can be recovered from the supplier of the goods and the same cannot be confirmed on the appellant. H .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nt, fraud etc. with the intent to evade payment of duty, no penalty can be imposed on the appellant in terms of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. To support his said view, the ld. Advocate has relied on the order dated 28.04.2010 of this Tribunal passed in the case of the appellant itself (Excise Appeal No. E/629/2006-EX.Br.) 5. Shri G.R. Singh, ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue, on the other hand, reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order. 6. We have heard the ld. Coun .....

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