Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Forum Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News What's New Calendar Imp. Links Database More...
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Indorama Synthetics (I) Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur

NCCD u/s 136 of the Finance Act, 2001 - goods cleared to 100% - Partially Oriented Yarn (POY) - Notification No. 46/2003-CE dated 17.05.2003 which exempted goods falling under Chapter No. 54.02 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - whether the appellant is eligible to get exemption of NCCD on goods cleared to 100% EOU? - Held that: - the Tribunal held that the issue is no more res integra and followed the decision in the case of Filatex India Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST [2014 (11) TMI 72 - CESTAT AHMED .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

16 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Ms. Anjali Hirawat, Advocate Advocate for Appellant Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, Supdt. (A.R.) for Respondent ORDER Per M. V. Ravindran: This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. SVS/315/NGP-II/2006 dated 05.10.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, (Appeals), Nagpur. 2. The relevant facts that arises for consideration whether the appellant who is engaged in the manufacture of Partially Oriented .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. 3. Learned Counsel would draw our attention to the facts and submit that the issue is no more res integra. An identical issue had been decided in this Tribunal in the case of Filatex India Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST 2014 (302) ELT 446 (Tri.-Ahmd.), J.B.F. Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE -2009 (246) ELT 286 (Tri.- Ahmd.) and M/s Chiripal Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Ahmedabad 2015-TIOL 1637-CESTAT-AHM, wherein it was held that NCCD on POY and cleared to 100% EOU are ex .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ommissioner of Central Excise, Meerut 2011 (273) ELT 89 (Tri.-Del.). It is his submission that notification should be construed strictly and there is no reason for any intendment as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hemraj Gordhandas Vs. H.H. Dave 1978 (2) ELT (J350) (SC), Grasim Industries Ltd. and Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another AIR 2000 SC 66. He would also rely upon various decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Excon Bldg. Material Manufactu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that the issue involved in this case is regarding National Calamity Contingency Duty leviable under Section 136 of the Finance Act, 2001 (14 of 2001), read with Section 169 of the Finance Act, 2003 (32 of 2003) as mended by Section 3 of Finance Act, 2004 for the period April, 2004 to August, 2004. It is not in dispute that the demand of NCCD is on POY cleared to captive consumption for goods manufactured export in an 100% EOU. 7. We find that the learned Counsel was correct in bringing to our n .....

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 respect of the clearances to 100% EOU, it is the case of the Revenue that NCCD is leviable on the ground that exemption under Notification No. 22/2003-CE does not cover exemption from NCCD. Regarding second issue of clearance of POY to job-worker for manufacture of grey fabrics, it is the case of the appellant that the same is covered by Rule 4(5) (a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules and no duty is payable. 2. Shri Anand Nainawati (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellants argued that NCCD is .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed that the present appeals are squarely covered by the latest law laid down by this bench. He also relied upon CBEC Circular No. 641/32/2002-CX dated 26.06.2002 on the issue. 3. Shri K. Shivakumar (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue defended the orders passed by the adjudicating authority. He also relied upon the judgment of CCE vs. Mahendra Petrochemicals Limited [2010 (256) ELT 473 (Tri. Ahmd.)]. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. On the issue of export of goods and chargea .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ods exported under bond. The duty demands are issued on the ground that the said notification does not apply to NCCD. ii Board has examined the matter. Though NCCD is levied under Finance Act, 2001, it is a duty of excise. Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001 issued under Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2001 read with Central Excise Rules, 2002 allows goods to be exported without payment of duty. Further, it is the policy to grant relief form element of domestic taxes on goods, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ive consumption of goods, it has been held in the case of M/s. Modern Petrofils vs. CCE Vadodara (supra) by this bench that NCCD is not leviable. In view of the latest view point held by this bench NCCD is not payable by the appellant. Secondly, CBEC circulars issued on an issue are binding on the departmental officers and cannot be challenged in appeal. In view of the above observations appeals filed by the appellants are allowed. In the case of M/s Modern Petrofils Ltd. Vs. CCE 2012-TIOL-132-C .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

effect from 01.03.2003 on the said goods as per section 136 of the Finance Act, 2001 read with clause 161 of the Finance Bill 2003 (now section 169 of the Finance Act, 2003). It appeared that the exemption from the payment of National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD) was not available to the manufacturer of the above goods cleared to 100% EOU, Further, whereas the notification no.46/2003-CE dated 17.5.2003 was issued to exempt the goods falling under heading no.54.02 from the whole of the NCCD 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

pay interest. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the impugned order and rejected the assessee's appeal. 4. We find that the issue had already been decided by this Bench in a case of the same appellant (M/s. Modern Petrofils Ltd.) in Appeal No.E/1640/05 reported in 2009-TIOL-515-CESTAT-AHM. 5. The facts are identical and the issue is no more res-integra. The decision of this Bench is as follows: The appellants have challenged the impugned order confirming the demand for NCCD in res .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(2008-TIOL-1209-CESTAT-MUM) (ii) CCE, Trichy Vs. Kulavi Tobacco industry reported in 2008 (227) ELT 416 (Tri-Chennai) 3. As regards clearances to 100% EOUs, he submits that in the case of Toyota Krloskar Motor Pvt Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore reported in 2007(217) ELT 403 (Tri-Bang) = (2007-TIOL-1422-CESTAT-BANG), it was held that NCCD is not leviable in respect of goods cleared availing the benefit of Notification No. 108/95-CE dated 28.8.95. He submits that ratio of this judgment can be applied for .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

osition, we find that the Order-in-Appeal does not stand. The appeal filed by the appellants is therefore allowed with consequential relief. 7.1 In the case of J.B.F. Industries Ltd. (supra) held as under:- 1. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of POY, which was being supplied by them to other 100% EOU as also was being sent to their job workers for conversion into texturised yarn. 2. The dispute in the present appeal is in respect of the National Calamity Contingency Duty (hereinafter .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dern Petrofils Ltd. being Order No. A/2689/WZB/AHD/2008, dt. 3-2-08, by taking note of the precedent decisions, has held that NCCD is not leviable in respect of the goods cleared to other 100% EOU. As such, we find that the issue is settled in favour of the assessee. We, accordingly, set aside the demand of duty of ₹ 6,73,288/-. 3. Another demand of ₹ 10,39,624/- has been confirmed against the appellant as NCCD in respect of POY cleared to their job workers. The appellant is not 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

d from their factory. This, submits the learned advocate, was under the bona fide belief on their part and as soon as the same was pointed out by Revenue, they deposited the said duty of ₹ 10,39,624/- even prior to issuance of show cause notice. As such, he submits that penalty of ₹ 5 lakhs reduced by Commissioner (Appeals) under the provisions of Rule 25 should be set aside in its totality. 4. We find force in the above contention of the learned advocate. The POY was being sent to j .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

able to NCCD. 8. As regards the POY cleared for captive consumption, the Tribunal decision in the case of M/s Chiripal Industries Ltd. (supra) held as under:- 1. This appeal has been filed by the Appellant with respect to OIA No.78/2007(Ahd-I), dt.27.02.2007, under which the first Appellate Authority has confirmed the OIO dt.22.11.2006 passed by the Adjudicating authority. The issue involved in the present proceedings is whether National Calamity Contingency Duty (NCCD) is leviable on Partially .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

consumption is no more res integra and is covered by the following case laws decided by this Tribunal:- a) M/s Modern Petrofils Vs CCE Vadodara-II Order No.A/2094/WZB/AHD/2011, dt.10.06.2011 (in Appeal No.E/2748/2006) b) M/s Modern Petrofils Vs CCE Vadodara-II Order No.A/2689/WZB/AHD/2008, dt.03.12.2008 (in Appeal No.E/1640/2005) c) M/s Filatex India Ltd Vs CCE Vapi [2014 (302) ELT 446 (Tri-Ahmd)] 3. Shri L. Patra, learned Authorised Representative appearing for the Revenue defended the order p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ied upon the case law of Modern Petrofils Ltd (supra) in Appeal No.E/2748/2006 passed by this Tribunal. 4.1 Para 2, 4, 5 & 6 of the above Order dt.10.06.2011 are reproduced below:- 4.2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturing Polyester Chips falling under sub-heading 3907.60 of CETA, Partially Oriented Yarn (PTY) falling under sub-heading 5402.32 and Polyester Filament Yarn (PFY) falling under sub-heading 5402.52 of the CETA. The National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCC .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

from the whole of the NCCD leviable thereon under Section 136 of the Finance Act, 2001 read with Clause 161 of the Finance Bill, 2003 (now Section 169 of the Finance Act, 2003) if such goods are manufactured from the goods falling under Heading No.54.02. However, there was no specific exemption notification that exempted NCCD imposed on POY cleared for captive consumption. 4.3 We find that the issue had already been decided by this Bench in the case of same appellant (M/s Modern Petrofils Ltd) i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ct of captive consumption, the following decisions of the Tribunal in support of his stand that NCCD is not leviable in respect of clearance for captive consumption:- (i) Tatra Trucks India Ltd Vs CCE, Chennai reported in 2008 (227) ELT 269 (Tri-Chennai) = (2009-TIOL-1209-CESTAT-Mum) (ii) CCE Trichy Vs Kulavi Tobacco Industry reported in 2008 (227) ELT 416 (Tri-Chennai) 3. As regards clearances to 100% EOUs, he submits that in the case of Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt.Ltd. Vs CCE, Bangalore reporte .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

  ↓     Latest Happening     ↓  

Forum: Input tax credit

Forum: GST on Notional rent

Forum: GST ON SALES PROMOTION

Forum: 3B mistake

Forum: Excise duty credit on finished stock at additional place of business.

Forum: PROCEDURE FOR SHIFTED OF FINISHED GOODS FROM AP KARNATAKA TO UP

TMI Note: Does ICDS apply for the purposes of computing exemption u/s 11 to 13.

Highlight: Voluntary Reporting of Estimated Current Income and Advance Tax Liability - CBDT issues draft notification

TMI Note: Certain ICDS provisions are inconsistent with judicial precedents. Whether these judicial precedents would prevail over ICDS.

Highlight: Provisions of ICDS shall prevail w.e.f. AY 2017-18 to the transactional issues dealt therein over earlier judicial pronouncements.

Notification: Levy of anti dumping duty on New/unused pneumatic radial tyres with or without tubes and/or flap of rubber (including tubeless tyres) having normal rim dia code above 16 originating in, or exported from China PR

News: Voluntary Reporting of Estimated Current Income and Advance Tax Liability

TMI Note: In case of conflict between ICDS and other specific provisions of the Income-tax rules, 1962 governing taxation of income like rules 9A, 9B etc. of the Rules, which provisions shall prevail.

TMI Note: Does ICDS apply to computation of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) u/s 115JB of the Act or Alternate Minimum Tax (AMT) u/s 115JC of the Act.

TMI Note: Where a term has not been defined under ICDS, nor under the Act, but has different interpretations given to it by the courts in tax cases, and in ICAI Accounting Standards, which interpretation would prevail while interpreting ICDS.

TMI Note: Whether the provisions of ICDS apply to a non-resident who claims the benefit of a double taxation avoidance agreement (DTAA).

TMI Note: In case any of the ICDS provisions is contrary to a circular or press release issued by the CBDT, which would prevail over the other.

TMI Note: ICDS-I requires disclosure of significant accounting policies and other ICDS requires specific disclosures. Where is the taxpayer required to make such disclosures specified in ICDS.

Notification: Income Computation and Disclosure Standards (ICDS) - New ICDS to be effective from AY 2017-18

Forum: Input credit of gst paid on urd

News: RBI Reference Rate for US $

Highlight: GST - Detention of goods under transport - discrepancy in documents - the statutory provisions provide a mechanism for adjudication following detention of goods including for the provisional release thereof pending adjudication - HC

Highlight: Reassessment - first few paragraphs of the assessment order dealt with objections and disposed of accordingly - Unfortunately, the manner in which the AO has decided the issue is wholly unsustainable in law - HC

Highlight: Business expenditure u/s 37 - liquidated damage - breach of contract terms - Expenditure was not incurred for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law - cannot be disallowed - HC

Highlight: Valuation - inclusion of reimbursement of expenses - managing participation of clients in certain mela, fairs, promotional activities etc. - They are liable to service tax on the gross amount received - They cannot restrict their tax liability to only agency commission

Highlight: TDS liability - ITAT confirmed the liability - We do not see how it is possible for us to uphold the order of the Tribunal and when it purports to decide two Appeals of the Revenue by single paragraph conclusion - HC

Highlight: Reopening of assessment - sufficiency of material available with the AO to form a belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment - bogus purchases - seller refused to respond - notice would not be interfered with - HC

Highlight: Exemption u/s 11 - education activities - transport and hostel facilities surplus cannot be considered as business income of the assessee society

News: Draft Notification for insertion of new rule 39A in the Income-tax Rules, 1962 – comments and suggestions-reg.

Highlight: Genuineness of labour wages expenses, embroidery charges, fabrication expenses etc. - getting work done through small workmen who do not have any permanent place of residence - disallowance of ad hoc expenditure deleted.

Highlight: Project import - Since the goods were never used for the purpose for which it was imported, the actual user condition has been violated - Redemption fine and penalty imposed.

Highlight: Penalty u/s 112 (a) - CHA - Lack of due diligence and failure to take more precautions can not, by itself, bring in penal consequences

Highlight: Import of services - GST - The fact that those services were received outside India will not change the fact that the services have been paid for by the beneficiary appellant, who is located in India. - Demand confirmed.

Notification: SEZ for IT/ITES at Madhurwada Village, Visakhapatnam District in the State of Andhra Pradesh - denotified.

Highlight: Merely because payment is received in Indian rupee, it cannot be said that payment against export has not been received in convertible foreign exchange.

Highlight: Merely vehicle numbers was not mentioned on the invoices cannot be the reason to deny Cenvat Credit

Highlight: Extension of time limit for submitting the declaration in FORM GST TRAN-1 under rule 120A of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 - Circular

Circular: Extension of time limit for submitting the declaration in FORM GST TRAN-1 under rule 120A of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017

News: Auction for Sale (Re-issue) of Government Stocks

Article: TDS APPLICABILITY ON GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS UNDER GST (Under Section 51 of the CGST Act, 2017)

News: Manmohan takes potshots at note ban, 'hasty' rollout of GST

News: GST on petrol, diesel requires wider discussion: Nitish

Article: WHEN CAN ONE TAKE ITC FOR RCM CASES?

Notification: TDS liability under Section 51 of CGST, 2017 come into force w.e.f. 18-9-2017 - Persons liable to deduct TDS from payment made or credited to the supplier of taxable goods or services specified

Notification: Central Goods and Services Tax (Seventh Amendment) Rules, 2017

Notification: Seeks to extend the last date for filing the return in FORM GSTR-3B for the months of August to December, 2017

Circular: Filing of Special Leave Petition against Orders of Hon'ble High Courts staying Collection of Tax under GST- reg.

Highlight: Exemption u/s 54F - LTCCG - once entire net consideration is invested, the absence of completion certificate cannot be a ground to deny the benefit of deduction.

Highlight: Deduction u/s 10B - initial AY - Mere authorization to enable the Assessee to import material or export produce in the earlier date would not ipso facto tantamount to commencement of substantial activity of ‘manufacture’/’production’.

Circular: Sub:- Procedure to be followed for Import under DEEC/EPCG Scheme- reg.



|| 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