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 - 2007 (1) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2007 (1) TMI 314 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
1. Whether duty is payable on goods supplied free of cost as free replacement during warranty period?
2. Whether the plea of bona fide belief can be entertained to reduce or set aside penalties imposed for non-payment of duty?

Analysis:
1. The case involved the manufacture of machines and machinery by the appellants. They supplied some parts as free replacements to buyers during the warranty period without charging any price or paying duty. The appellants believed they were not liable to pay duty on these free replacements, citing a Supreme Court decision. The Tribunal noted that the goods were properly accounted for and not clandestinely removed. The Tribunal distinguished this case from a previous Supreme Court decision involving duty evasion through manipulation of selling patterns. As there was no evidence of manipulation in the present case, the Tribunal upheld the plea of bona fide belief. The penalty on the company was reduced significantly, and the penalty on the Chief Accountant was set aside. However, the duty itself was upheld as uncontested.

2. The learned SDR referred to a Supreme Court decision where a plea of bona fide belief was not accepted, and a penalty equal to duty was imposed. In this case, the Tribunal found that the appellants could not have entertained a bona fide belief that duty was not payable on goods supplied free of cost as replacements during the warranty period. However, due to the lack of evidence of manipulation or duty evasion, the Tribunal upheld the plea of bona fide belief in this case. The penalty on the company was reduced significantly, and the penalty on the Chief Accountant was set aside. The duty itself was upheld as uncontested. The Tribunal allowed the appeals in favor of the appellants, with the reduced penalty amount.

This judgment clarifies the application of the plea of bona fide belief in cases of non-payment of duty on goods supplied free of cost as replacements during warranty periods. It emphasizes the importance of proper accounting and lack of manipulation in determining whether such a plea can be entertained to reduce or set aside penalties.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates