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. Terumo Penpol Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise, & Customs, Mysore

2017 (11) TMI 255 - CESTAT BANGALORE

CENVAT credit - manufacture of dutiable as well as exempt goods - non-maintenance of separate set of books - Held that: - though the appellant is not maintaining the separate records with regard to clearance of PVC pipes on payment of duty and PVC scrap cleared at nil rate of duty but they have been clearly showing both type of clearances in their ER-1 returns which has been regularly filed with the Department - the appellants have been filing periodical returns in which they have clearly declar .....

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/22765/2014 - 22684/2017 - Dated:- 1-11-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Mr. Manoj Pillai, Advocate For the Appellant Dr. J. Harish, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S. GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 22.5.2014 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are the appellants are manufacturers of blood bags falling under CETH 9018 9032 availing CENVAT .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

12.2005 by availing exemption under Notification No.10/2003 but no separate account has been maintained for receipt, consumption and inventory of CENVAT credit used for the manufacture of dutiable final products and exempted final products as provided in Rule 6(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules. As the appellant had not maintained separate accounts for dutiable final products as well as exempted final products they are liable to pay 8% of the value of exempted goods cleared up to 9.9.2004 and 10% fr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Rules 15(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, were also proposed in the notice. After following the due process, the original authority confirmed the demand with interest and imposed equal penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (A), who also rejected the said appeal, hence the present apepal. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order 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

ils of clearance of PVC pipes (on payment of duty) and PVC scrap (under nil rate of duty) and availment of CENVAT credit were clearly shown and the Central Excise officers at no point of time issued any instructions/directions to the appellant regarding alleged incorrect practice followed by the appellants. He further submitted that there is no suppression of fact with intent to evade payment of duty and therefore, the invocation of extended period of limitation is wrong and illegal. 4.1 In supp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Pharmaceuticals Vs. CCE: 1995 (78) ELT 401, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: Expression Suppression of Fact is to be interpreted strictly because it has been used in company of such strong words as fraud, collusion or wilful default. Extended period of five years is not applicable just for any omission of assessee unless it is deliberate to escape payment of duty . 4.3 Further, this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of GAC Shipping India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE: 2008 (9) STR 524 has 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

y . 5. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order and submitted that it is only on account of audit that lapse on the part of the appellant was detected and the appellant has not informed the department regarding the availment of exemption under Notification. 6. After considering the submissions of both sides and perusal of the material on record, I find that though the appellant is not maintaining the separate records with regard to clearance of PVC pipes on .....

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