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 →

M/s. Lita Industries Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Vapi

2016 (10) TMI 738 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

Evasion of Central Excise Duty - search of premises - removal of goods without payment of duty - confiscation of goods with an option to pay redemption fine - imposition of penalty - legality of Redemption Fine and penalty imposed - Held that: - Once the amount payable under Cenvat Credit Rules is held as duty of excise, the inputs and capital goods removed without payment of amount on duty from the factory of the first appellant shall be treated to have been removed without payment of duty, mak .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

goods and imposition of redemption fine in lieu of confiscation and imposition of penalty upheld - quantum of redemption fine and penalty reduced - appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/11476,11480,11482/2013 - ORDER No. A/11096-11098/2016 - Dated:- 7-10-2016 - Mr. P. M. Saleem, Hon'ble Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Shri Mukund Chauhan, Consultant For the Respondent : Shri S. N. Gohil, Authorised Representative ORDER Per : Mr. P. M. Saleem M/s. .....

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 is a Central Excise registered unit is engaged in manufacturing of Umbrella Frames falling under Chapter 66; the second appellant is manufacturing Tube on job work basis for the first appellant; and the third appellant is a godown premises belonging to the same partnership firm. All the three are located at separate and different addresses, but at Umbergaon, District Valsad. On the basis of intelligence that appellants are indulging in evasion of Central Excise duty, the department carried out .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and ₹ 3,17,748/- through GAR-7, challan towards CENVAT credit involved in the said raw materials and capital goods which were removed without reversing credit/ without payment of duty and without issuing central excise invoices. The department seized the said raw materials and capital goods found in the premises of second and third appellants. Subsequently, department issued a show cause notice seeking to confiscate the goods valued at ₹ 18,37,642/- seized at the premises of the seco .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

12,00,000/- under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the first appellant. No penalty was imposed on the other two appellants and partners of the appellant firms, though proposed in show cause notice. Aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original, all the three appellants filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), who by the impugned OIA upheld the order of confiscation of the goods seized at the premises of the second and third appellants alongwith imposition of redemption fine but he .....

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. 4. On careful consideration of the submissions of both sides and perusal of the records, we find that the first appellant had undisputedly availed CENVAT credit f the duty paid on the raw material and capital goods and removed the same from the registered premises without reversing the credit/ without payment of duty and without issuing Central Excise invoices and challans. It is not disputed that the inputs or capital goods on removal, after taking credit, must be removed on payment of an am .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

uty of excise, the inputs and capital goods removed without payment of amount on duty from the factory of the first appellant shall be treated to have been removed without payment of duty, making the same liable to confiscation under Rule 25(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 5. In view of the above, the liability of the goods for confiscation (and redemption fine in lieu), and liability to penalty for the appellants, are established. The appellants have relied upon a few case laws. On carefu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

imited 2010 (260) ELT 71 (Guj.), facts are entirely different and the issue was imposition of penalty. In the case of Subhlaxmi Syntex Pvt. Limited vs. CCE, Daman 2011 (264) ELT 547 (Tri. Ahmd.) it was the question of temporary removal and storage. In the case of Baroda Conductors P. Limited vs. CCE, Daman 2009 (245) ELT 837 (Tri. Ahmd.)- copper rods/ bars sent by Unit-I to Unit-II of the appellant were in excess of the recorded balance and reasons for the same was explained as due to the absenc .....

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