News Update

Unveil One Nation; One Debt Code; One Compliance Rule for Centre & StatesChina moves WTO against US tax subsidies for EVs & renewable energyMore on non-doms - The UK Spring Budget 2024 (See TII Edit)Notorious history-sheeter Mukhtar Ansari succumbs to cardiac arrest in UP jailTraining Program for Cambodian civil servants commences at MussoorieNY imposes USD 15 congestion taxCBIC revises tariff value of edible oils, gold & silver45 killed as bus races into ravine in South AfricaCBIC directs all Customs offices to remain open on Saturday & SundayBankman-Fried jailed for 25 yrs in FTX scamI-T- Once the citizen deposits the tax upon coming to know of his liability, it cannot be said that he has deliberately or willfully evaded the depositing of tax and interest in terms of Section 234A can be waived: HCHouthis attack continues in Red Sea; US military shoots down 4 dronesI-T- Secured creditor has priority charge over secured asset, over claims of I-T Department & other Departments; any excess amount recovered by Secured Creditor from auction of secured asset, over & above the dues payable to it, are to be remitted to the Departments: HCFederal Govt hands out USD 60 mn to rebuild collapsed bridge in BaltimoreI-T - Receipts of sale of scrap being part & parcel of activity and being proximate thereto would also be within ambit of gains derived from industrial undertaking for purpose of computing deduction u/s 80-IB: HCCanadian School Boards sue social media titans for 4 bn Canadian dollar in damagesI-T - Once assssee on year of reversal has paid taxes on excess provision and similar feature appeared in earlier years and assesee had payments for liquidated damages on delay of deliverables, no adverse inference can be drawn: HCFormer IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt jailed for 20 yrs for planting drugs to frame lawyerST - Software development service & IT-enabled service provided by assessee was exempt from tax during relevant period, by virtue of CBEC's Notification & Circular; demands raised for such period not sustainable: CESTATUN says Households waste across world is now at least one billion meals a dayCus - Order rejecting exporter's request for conversion of Shipping Bills on grounds that the same has been made by exporter beyond period of three months from date of Let Export Order in terms of CBEC Circular No. 36/2010-Cus : CESTATIndia, China hold fresh dialogue for complete disengagement on Western borders: MEACus - No Cess is payable when Basic Customs Duty is found to be Nil: CESTATThakur says India is prepared for 2036 OlympicsCX - As per settled law, a right acquired as result of a statutory provision, cannot be taken away retrospectively unless said statutory provision so provides or by necessary implication has such effect: CESTAT
 
CX - Once amount payable under CCR is treated as duty of excise, inputs & capital goods removed without payment of duty shall be liable to confiscation u/r 25(1) of CER, 2002: CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

AHMEDABAD, OCT 28, 2016: THE first appellant is a registered unit engaged in manufacturing of Umbrella Frames [Ch 66]; the second appellant is the job work unit of the first appellant manufacturing 'Tube'; 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.

During the physical verification of stock at the aforesaid three premises, the department detected that the raw materials, finished goods and capital goods removed by the first appellant were lying at the premises of the second and third appellants.

The first appellant admitted that they had cleared these goods without issuing challans and without payment of duty, and accordingly paid Rs.11,69,500/- from CENVAT credit account and Rs.3,17,748/- through GAR-7challan 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, a SCN was issued seeking to confiscate the goods valued at Rs.18,37,642/- seized at the premises of the second appellant and the goods valued at Rs.1,00,04,981/- seized at the premises of the third appellant and to impose penalty on all the three appellants.

The adjudicating authority ordered confiscation of the goods and imposed redemption fine of Rs.2 lakhs in respect of the goods seized at the premises of the second appellant, and Redemption Fine of Rs.15 lakhs in respect of goods seized at the premises of third appellant and imposed penalty of Rs.12 lakhs under Rule 25 of the CER, 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.

The Commissioner (Appeals)upheld the order of confiscation of the goods seized at the premises of the second and third appellants alongwith imposition of redemption fine but reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 10 lakhs in r/o the goods seized at the premises of the third appellant. Penalty imposed was also upheld but reduced to Rs.7.5 lakhs.

Aggrieved, the appellants are before the CESTAT and pray that the Redemption Fine and penalty imposed, since not legally proper should be set-aside.

The Bench observed –

++ We find that the first appellant had undisputedly availed CENVAT credit of 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 amount equivalent to the credit amount availed in terms of Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules.

++ It is also not disputed that the amount payable under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is treated as duty of excise as per Explanation to Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, which reads as under:-

"Explanation- For the purposes of this Rule, the expressions 'duty of excise' shall also include the amount payable in terms of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004."

++ Once the amount payable under Cenvat Credit Rules is held as duty of excise, the inputs and capital goods removed without payment of amount (equal to credit amount) 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.

In fine, the impugned Order-in-Appealconfirming the confiscation of the goods and imposition of redemption fine in lieu of confiscation and imposition of penalty on the first appellant was upheld.

However, noting that there is sufficient ground for further reduction of redemption fine on the third appellant and penalty on the first appellant, the same were reduced to Rs.5 lakhs.

The appeals were disposed of.

(See 2016-TIOL-2801-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