9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 1053 - AT - Central ExciseDemand of duty u/s 11D of the Central Excise Act 1944 - SSI units - price is inclusive of duty of excise - it was alleged that the appellant had availed the SSI Exemption as per N/N. 08/2003 CE dated 01.03.2003 and concurrently collected the Central Excise Duty from their customers but not deposited with the Department - Held that - Admittedly the appellant was working as a SSI unit during the material period and he was availing the SSI exemption. It is also a fact that the assessee has not charged Excise duty from the buyer and he has not shown the Excise duty in the invoices because as per the agreement between the appellant and his buyer the price is inclusive of Excise duty - Since the appellant has not collected the Excise duty from the buyer during the time when he was availing the SSI exemption, there is no question of demanding the duty from the appellant under Section 11D. Demand do not sustain - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Appeal against rejection by Commissioner (Appeals) of appellant's appeal. 2. Applicability of SSI exemption under Notification No. 08/2003 CE. 3. Demand of central excise duty, interest, and penalty. 4. Interpretation of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 5. Consideration of binding judicial precedents. 6. Assessment of duty rates during the disputed period. 7. Arguments based on legal decisions supporting the appellant's case. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against the rejection of the appellant's appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant, a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical products, availed the SSI Exemption under Notification No. 08/2003 CE. The Department alleged that the appellant collected Central Excise Duty from customers but did not deposit it, leading to a demand notice and penalty imposition. 2. The appellant contended that they did not collect any duty during the disputed period while enjoying the SSI exemption. They argued that the price charged to customers included VAT and no separate Excise duty was collected. The Commissioner rejected the appeal, prompting the present appeal. 3. The appellant's counsel argued that the impugned order failed to consider factual and legal aspects and contradicted established judicial precedents. They emphasized that no Excise duty was charged or collected during the SSI exemption period, as confirmed by invoices and agreements with buyers. 4. The Tribunal found that the appellant, during the SSI exemption period, did not collect Excise duty separately but included it in the price charged to buyers. As no duty was collected during the exemption period, the demand under Section 11D was deemed inapplicable. Citing relevant judicial decisions, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order. 5. The Tribunal's decision was based on the appellant's adherence to SSI exemption terms, where no separate duty collection occurred. The judgment aligned with established legal principles and previous case law, supporting the appellant's position and overturning the Commissioner's decision. 6. The Tribunal also noted discrepancies in the duty rates applied in the demand raised, indicating flaws in assumptions made without considering the actual duty rates applicable during the disputed period. 7. Legal arguments and decisions referenced by the appellant's counsel further reinforced the Tribunal's ruling, emphasizing consistency with established legal interpretations and precedents in similar cases. This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the legal judgment comprehensively, outlining the arguments presented and the Tribunal's decision in favor of the appellant.
|
