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

2017 (11) TMI 1039

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ts are recognized for manufacture in the LOP. By demarcation of byproducts, the obligation cast on the appellants cannot be waived. These are not scrap or waste. Admittedly, these valuable products have been cleared to domestic market in violation of Foreign Trade Policy - the appellants are liable to duty as confirmed in terms of Section 3 (1) of CEA, 44. Extended period of limitation - penalty - Held that: - The question that all the facts are taken from the records of the appellants by itself will not take away the sustainability of the demands for longer period - extended period and penalty rightly imposed. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - E/40324/2013 E/396/2010 - Final Order No. 42934-42935/2017 - Dated:- 14-11-2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... th reference to duty liability on neem cake and neem oil obtained from extracted kernel in the premises of the job worker. The said items have been cleared by the appellant from the premises of job worker as a non-excisable product. The Revenue after conducting enquiry held a view that the appellants failed to discharge their obligation in terms of LOP granted to them and failed to pay applicable duty on the neem oil and neem cake cleared to domestic market. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated against the appellant, which resulted in the confirmation of duty demands in two proceedings for different periods. Penalties were also imposed on the appellants in terms of Section 11 AC of the CEA, 44 and Rule 25 of CER, 02. 4. The Ld. Counse .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ke from neem kernel has been undertaken by the job worker, they bonafidely interpreted the legal provision regarding non-liability to the duty in the present case. The whole case is based on the verification of their records which were duly checked by the officers. On this count also there can be no case for extended period as well as penalties. 5. The Ld. AR contested the appeals on all counts. He submitted on the following lines:- i) The LOP granted by the Development Commissioner is very clear and categorical. There are four products mentioned in the LOP dated 02.05.2005. Some are considered as prime and others are considered as byproducts. This is a matter of practice and understanding. This does not take away the obligation of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on neem oil and neem cake which are the by products emerging in the process of using neem seeds and after extractions of Neemazal /technical/formulation in the process. The facts of the case and the process involved and the role of the job worker are not in dispute. First to be considered is the claim of the appellants regarding the job worker being the manufacturer. In the facts of the present case we note that the appellants have discharged neem kernel for further processing and extraction of neem oil and neem cake which they have sold to their customers from the premises of the job worker. This manufacturing arrangement is clearly predetermined in terms of the contract. The appellants responsibility for due disposal of all the products .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the policy. Hence, the rate and the quantification of duty liability have to be arrived at in terms of the policy and applicable notification. In the present case, the Revenue held that the appellants are not eligible for any of the concession stipulated under the notification No. 23/2003. We note that the appellant contested the finding only on the ground that these two are byproducts and have no obligation to have similar products exported. We are not in agreement with the said proposition. These products are recognized for manufacture in the LOP. By demarcation of byproducts, the obligation cast on the appellants cannot be waived. These are not scrap or waste. Admittedly, these valuable products have been cleared to domestic market in .....

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