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 - 2018 (8) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2018 (8) TMI 1077 - AT - Central Excise


Issues:
1. Eligibility for SSI Exemption Notification No. 8/2003-CE for the financial year 2008-2009.
2. Consideration of clearance value for the financial year 2007-2008.
3. Treatment of bought out parts in the aggregate clearance value.
4. Imposition of penalty under Section 11 AC.

Eligibility for SSI Exemption (Issue 1):
The appellants sought SSI Exemption for the financial year 2008-2009, which was denied by Revenue due to crossing the threshold aggregate clearance value of ?4 Crores in the financial year 2007-2008. The appellant's counsel argued that duty payment for a consignment of Spin Flash Dryer on 31.03.2007 should be considered in the previous year, reducing the value for 2007-2008 below the threshold. Additionally, they contended that certain bought out parts should be excluded from the aggregate value. The Tribunal noted that physical clearances after 01.04.2007 should be considered for the relevant year, and further investigation was required to determine if certain goods were manufactured or bought out. The penalty under Section 11 AC was set aside due to no suppression of facts.

Consideration of Clearance Value (Issue 2):
The Revenue argued that even though duty was paid before 31.03.2007, goods were physically cleared after 01.04.2007, impacting the aggregate value calculation for the financial year. The Tribunal agreed that physical clearances post 01.04.2007 should be accounted for in the relevant year, leading to the conclusion that the appellants exceeded the ?4 Crores threshold in 2007-2008.

Treatment of Bought Out Parts (Issue 3):
The appellant claimed that certain bought out parts should not be included in the aggregate value calculation. The Tribunal observed that specific verification was needed to determine if goods like the Spray Drayer were manufactured or bought out. The matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority for further investigation on this aspect.

Imposition of Penalty under Section 11 AC (Issue 4):
Regarding the penalty under Section 11 AC, the Tribunal found that there was no suppression of facts as duty payment was duly declared in the invoice and monthly returns. Consequently, the penalty under Section 11 AC was set aside, along with the penalty on the Director. The demand for duty and interest on the appellant company was remanded back to the adjudicating authority for further proceedings.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, setting aside penalties and remanding the matter for additional investigation and determination on specific aspects related to the eligibility for SSI Exemption and treatment of certain goods in the aggregate clearance value calculation.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates