News Update

India, China hold fresh dialogue for complete disengagement on Western borders: MEAThakur says India is prepared for 2036 OlympicsCBDT substitutes Form in ITR-5EV Revolution: Lessons for India to learn from US and China!London court green-signals auction of luxury apartment of fugitive Nirav ModiGovt consults RBI; finalises borrowing plan for first half of FY 2024-25Gadkari says Farmers’ protest is politically-motivatedVP calls upon women entrepreneurs to be 'Vocal for Local'America offers USD 10 mn bounty for information on ‘Blackcat’ hackers after UnitedHealth gets hitI-T- The order of the ITSC can only be reopened in cases of fraud or misrepresentation: HC8 persons including Hezbollah militants killed in Israeli strike on LebanonI-T - Income so surrendered on account of investment in excess stock during course of survey cannot be brought to tax under deeming provisions of section 69B: ITATMacron pillories EU-South Africa trade deal; calls it ‘really bad’ in BrazilI-T-Power of revision need not be exercised where facts do not reveal any lack of enquiry by AO into relevant issue & when twin requirements of order being erroneous as well as prejudicial to Revenue's interests, are not satisfied: ITATThailand’s Lower House okays Bill to legitimise same-sex marriageI-T -Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed where an assessee claims deduction u/s 80P while being ineligible therefor, but being under the bona fide impression of being eligible for such benefit : ITATYellen warns China against clean energy dumpingCus - Enhancement of declared value of imported goods is not tenable, where Department adduces no material to show how the enhanced value was computed & where no cogent rationale is made out for rejecting declared value: CESTATMilky Way’s central black hole - Twisted magnetic field observedCus - Assessee has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that goods in question imported under air way bills/bills of entry were in fact filed by him and hence the only natural corollary available to Revenue is confiscation of same: CESTATSmall investors help Trump Media’s valuation skyrocket to USD 13 billionST - When the facts are in the knowledge of department subsequent SCN alleging suppression cannot be issued and entire demand was found beyond normal period of limitation: CESTATFM Nirmala Sitharaman declines to contest LS elections as she has no fundsST - Tripura State Rifles not required to pay Service Tax under heading of Security Services, as it is is not engaged in business of providing security services: CESTATJustice Ritu Raj Awasthi joins as Judicial member of LokpalCX - Clandestine removal alleged based on consumption of raw inputs and heightened electricity usage - Tax demands based on third party statements but without permitting cross examination of deponents; case remanded to allow this exercise: CESTAT
 
CX - Clandestine removal of Textured Yarn - Appellant submitting that they had used duty paid POY for manufacture on which no CENVAT was availed and, therefore, they are entitled for benefit of Notfn. 6/2002 - no observation of lower authorities on evidentiary value of CA certificate - matter remanded: CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

AHMEDABAD, AUG 31, 2016: ON a visit to the factory premises, the Officers retrieved a private notebook allegedly containing clearances without payment of duty. On completion of investigation, it was noticed that the Appellant had removed 26157.60 kgs of finished Textured Yarn clandestinely without payment of duty during the period from 01.04.2002 to 07.06.2002.

A SCN was issued for recovery of duty of Rs.4,71,675/- and on adjudication, the demand was confirmed and equivalent penalty was imposed on appellant and personal penalty of Rs.10,000/- on the Authorized Signatory of the Company u/r 26 of CER, 2002.

As the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeals, the appellants are before the CESTAT.

The appellant submitted that the POY used in the manufacture of Textured Yarn had suffered duty; there are purchase invoices in this regard and, therefore, they are entitled for benefit of notification 6/2002-CE; moreover, they had not availed CENVAT Credit on the said POY. Nonetheless, as the entire amount of duty was paid by them soon after the detection of the case and before issuance of Show Cause Notice, therefore, no penalty is imposable on the Appellant. So also, both the authorities below had not allowed the Appellant to pay 25% of the penalty imposed u/s 11AC of CEA,1944 on fulfillment necessary conditions, which they are eligible to in view of the decision in Harish Silk Mills - 2010-TIOL-510-HC-AHM-CX.

The AR submitted that the Adjudicating authority had recorded reasons for not accepting the three invoices produced by the Appellant as the quantity mentioned therein was not sufficient to manufacture the textured yarn cleared without payment of duty; that in his statement the Authorized signatory had stated that they purchased the POY to manufacture the goods cleared clandestinely; that retraction was an afterthought.

The Bench observed -

+ It is an admitted fact that during the period from 01.04.2002 to 07.06.2002, the Appellant had manufactured and cleared 26,157.600 kgs of Textured Yarn without payment of duty.

+ On perusal of the said Notification (6/2002-CE), it is clear that two conditions need to be satisfied so as to be eligible to the benefit of said notification. These are namely, the duty must have been paid on the POY used for texturisation and CENVAT Credit should not have been availed on the said POY. The claim of the Appellant that even though they had cleared 26,167.600 kgs of manufactured Textured yarn without payment of duty, however, the same had been manufactured from duty paid POY and they had not availed CENVAT Credit on the said POY.

+ We find that the authorities below had not accepted the quantity of 23540.700 kgs mentioned against the three invoices issued by M/s Parsurampuria Synthetics in calculating the total quantity of POY received and consumed, and also observing that the same did not conform to the quantity of removal of Textured Yarn i.e. 26,167.600 kgs even after adding 1.75% as the quantity towards oil gain, which works out to only 23,952 kgs. In other words, both the authorities below had arrived at the finding that the Appellants had not adduced sufficient evidence to establish that the POY used in the manufacture of 26,167.600kgs of textured yarn had suffered duty.

+ The claim of the Appellants, on the other hand, was that they had produced evidences including the CA certificate to show that the said quantity of POY had been purchased and consumed in their factory; the payments were made through A/C payee cheques, accordingly it should be accepted. From the impugned Order we could not notice any observation on the evidentiary value of the said certificate and its acceptability...

Concluding that it was appropriate to verify/examine the said evidences before arriving at any conclusion, the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (A). It was also directed that after determination of duty liability, quantum of penalty on the Appellants be considered keeping in view the cited decisions regarding eligibility to discharge 25% of penalty.

The Appeals were disposed of.

(See 2016-TIOL-2257-CESTAT-AHM )


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri Shailendra Kumar, Trustee, TIOL Trust, giving welcome speech at TIOL Awards 2023




Shri M C Joshi, Former Chairman, CBDT




Address by Shri Buggana Rajendranath, Hon'ble Finance Minister of Andhra Pradesh at TIOL Awards 2023