9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (2) TMI 479 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
1. Confirmation of duty demand, interest, and penalty on the appellant-company and its deputy general manager. 2. Imposition of penalty on the deputy general manager. 3. Appeal against reduction of duty demand by the Revenue. Analysis: Issue 1: The Commissioner confirmed a duty demand, interest, and penalty on the appellant-company for clearances of BOPP films to their sister unit. The dispute arose regarding the basis for payment of duty, whether it should be the comparable price for similar goods or the cost construction method. The appellant argued that they had already paid a substantial sum towards duty and should not be liable for additional duty. The Tribunal held that no further duty liability was imposed on the appellants as the duty had been paid prior to the show cause notice. Consequently, the interest and penalty were set aside, and the appeal of the company was allowed. Issue 2: The deputy general manager contested the penalty imposed on him, arguing that Rule 209A was not applicable without a proposal for confiscation of goods. The Tribunal agreed, stating that since no confiscation order was issued, the penalty under Rule 209A was not justified. Therefore, the appeal of the deputy general manager was also allowed. Issue 3: The Revenue appealed against the reduction of duty demand by the Commissioner. The Revenue contended that the duty short paid by the assessees was calculated incorrectly. The Commissioner had made adjustments based on the proviso to the Rule, considering factors like wastage, conversion charges, and profit margin. The Tribunal reviewed the calculations and upheld the Commissioner's findings, rejecting the Revenue's appeal for an enhanced duty amount. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant-company and its deputy general manager, setting aside the duty demand, interest, and penalties. The Revenue's appeal against the reduced duty demand was also dismissed, affirming the Commissioner's adjustments as per the proviso to the Rule.
|
