2017 (11) TMI 287 - AT - Central Excise

SSI exemption - crossing of threshold limit - Held that - the Ld. Commissioner has dropped the demand on the ground of time bar by giving a very reasoned finding that all the records were being maintained by the respondents and the department was not prevented to verify such records from time to time, particularly when the respondent was claiming the exemption notification. Therefore, the dropping of demand on time bar also found to be correct and legal - the adjudicating authority has to requantify the correct duty amount considering the fact that there are some repetition of demand and also on cum duty value of the goods - matter on remand. Penalty u/r 26 - Held that - both the persons being director of the appellant company, were very well aware of the goods being cleared without payment of duty. Therefore, they are liable for penalty - decided against appellant. Penalty on M/s. ACT Trading Co. - Held that - M/s. ACT Trading Co. is manufacturing certain parts and clearing it to M/s. Agwan Coach Pvt. Ltd.. There is no demand on goods supplied by M/s. ACT Trading Co., therefore their goods which are not liable for confiscation - penalty not sustainable. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Exceeded exemption limit for SSI units, Demand of excise duty, Imposition of penalties, Time-barred show-cause notice, Captive use exemption under notification 6/2006, Suppression of facts, Rectification of demand calculation, Personal penalty under Rule 26, Liability of directors, Penalty on trading company, Confiscation of goods.

Analysis:
1. The appellants exceeded the exemption limit for SSI units and cleared trailers without paying duty. The contention that goods used captively for chassis are exempt under notification 6/2006 was dismissed as the exemption applies only to goods used for manufacturing motor vehicles, not trailers. The demand of duty was upheld due to the nature of goods manufactured by the appellants falling under chapter heading 8716.

2. The argument that the second show-cause notice was time-barred was rejected. The case involved suppression of facts, allowing the revenue a five-year period to issue the notice. As such, the notice was deemed valid and not time-barred. The demand calculation error was acknowledged, requiring rectification by granting the cum-duty benefit to the appellants.

3. Personal penalties under Rule 26 were imposed on the directors of the appellant company for being aware of goods being cleared without duty payment. The penalties were upheld, leading to the dismissal of their appeals. However, the penalty imposed on the trading company was set aside as there was no demand on the goods supplied by them, making the penalty unsustainable.

4. In conclusion, all appeals were disposed of accordingly, with the demand upheld on merit, the rectification of demand calculation required, personal penalties on directors confirmed, and the penalty on the trading company set aside due to lack of liability for confiscation of their goods. The judgment was pronounced on 31/10/2017.