Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (12) TMI 969

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Department that there has been suppression of fact on the part of the appellant, is not sustainable. The entire demand is raised under extended period and since the suppression cannot sustain, the invocation of proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 11 A of Central Excise Act, 1944 also does not sustain. We, therefore, hold that the impugned show-cause-notice is not sustainable in Law - decided in favor of appellant. - E/3986 & 3987/2012-[DB] - FINAL ORDER NO.- 70920-70921/2016 - Dated:- 3-6-2016 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) and Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Jeevesh Mehta Shri Arun Pathak, Advocates for the Appellant (s) Shri Pawan Kumar Singh Supdt. (A.R.) for the Department ORDER The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed 29.05.2012 before the Original authority, the appellant contended that the activity of conduct of quality control test in the in-house laboratory is activity in relation to the manufacture of final products, and since, the destruction of Cigarettes does not take place in conducting said tests, the decision in the matter of M/s ITC Ltd. stated in show cause notice, does not apply to their case, factory of the noticee is under physical control and charge of clandestine removal was made in the show-cause-notice was unsustainable and Central Excise duty is payable on removal of goods from the factory and the said goods were not removed from the factory and, therefore, the question of demand of duty did not arise and the allegations of suppre .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to the running machines for further packing and dispatch on payment of duty. (b) duty has been finally paid on cigarettes used in the testing process. (c) Assessee was under physical control and there was no charge of clandestine removal. (d) The quality control tests conducted by the appellants, were part of the manufacturing process and, therefore, duty cannot be charged on cigarettes taken to in-house laboratory for conducting such tests. (e) Central Excise duty is payable on removal of goods from the factory and the goods on which duty was demanded, were not removed from the factory and in view of the facts that factory was under physical supervision, the charge of suppression is unsustainable and as a result, the invocation .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates