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

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2006 (8) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2006 (8) TMI 349 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
1. Demand of duty and penalty imposed by the Commissioner.
2. Dropping of part of the demand and Section 11AC penalty.
3. Assessee's appeal against differential duty, interest, and penalty.
4. Non-inclusion of amortized value of moulds in assessable value.
5. Error in quantification of duty by the Commissioner.
6. Remand for correct quantification of duty.
7. Imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q.
8. Commissioner's decision on penalty under Section 11AC.

Analysis:
1. The Commissioner demanded duty and imposed a penalty on the assessee for a show-cause notice issued for the period 1992-93 to 1997-98. The appeal was against the dropping of part of the demand and Section 11AC penalty. The assessee appealed against the excess demand of duty, interest, and penalty under Rule 173Q.

2. The issue arose from the non-inclusion of the amortized value of moulds in the assessable value of goods cleared to the buyer. The Department invoked a larger period of limitation for the duty demand due to non-disclosure. The Commissioner quantified duty based on records provided by departmental officers, leading to an arithmetical error in the conclusion. The case was remanded for a fresh order based on the statements provided by the buyer.

3. The remand required the Commissioner to decide on the correct quantification of differential duty and the imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q. The question of penalty under Section 11AC for the period after 28-9-1996 was left for the Commissioner's decision.

4. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed concerning penalty under Section 11AC for the period before 28-9-96. However, the appeal was allowed for the remaining period, leading to a remand for the claim of a similar penalty.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted errors in the quantification of duty by the Commissioner, leading to a remand for a fresh order based on accurate information. The decision on the imposition of penalties under Rule 173Q and Section 11AC was left to the Commissioner for further consideration and determination.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates