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 - 2017 (3) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2017 (3) TMI 595 - AT - Central Excise


Issues involved:
- Excise duty on freight separately collected
- Shortage of finished goods
- Duty on removal of capital goods
- Credit availed on measuring instrument
- Penalty under Section 11AC
- Excess stock of finished goods
- Penalties imposed under Rule 26

Excise duty on freight separately collected:
The appellant had collected transportation charges separately from customers. The demand for duty on this collection was contested by the appellant, arguing that the freight was deductible as it was separately invoiced. The Tribunal agreed, citing precedents that support the deduction of freight in excise valuation. The demand of ?84,428 on freight was deemed unsustainable.

Shortage of finished goods:
During a check, discrepancies in finished goods stock were found. The appellant attributed these variations to accounting errors over time. The Tribunal acknowledged the shortage but noted the lack of evidence for clandestine removal. The demand for shortage of goods and the redemption fine for excess goods were reduced, considering the minor quantity discrepancies.

Duty on removal of capital goods and Credit availed on measuring instrument:
The appellant had paid only 50% of the excise duty on the removal of capital goods, leading to a demand. The Tribunal found the issue contentious but noted that the appellant had paid the demanded amount with interest. Similarly, the duty on a measuring instrument was paid by the appellant without contest. These demands were upheld.

Penalty under Section 11AC:
The appellant sought waiver of the penalty under Section 11AC, claiming no suppression of facts. The Tribunal agreed, finding no malafide intent to evade duty. The penalty was set aside due to inadvertence or accounting errors rather than intentional evasion.

Excess stock of finished goods and Penalties imposed under Rule 26:
The Tribunal acknowledged the excess stock of finished goods and reduced the redemption fine imposed. Personal penalties imposed on the Managing Director and an employee were deemed unsustainable due to the lack of malafide intent. The penalties under Rule 26 were set aside.

In conclusion, the Tribunal maintained some demands, such as excise duty on freight and duty on capital goods, while dropping others like penalties under Section 11AC and penalties under Rule 26. The judgment highlighted the importance of intent in determining liability for duty evasion and emphasized the need for evidence in establishing discrepancies in stock.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates