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 (10) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2007 (10) TMI 193 - AT - Central Excise


Issues:
1. Classification of M.S. Pipes for excise duty purposes.
2. Allegations of misdeclaration and fraudulent practices by the assessee.
3. Limitation period for demand of duty.
4. Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:

Classification of M.S. Pipes: The case involved the classification of M.S. Pipes for excise duty purposes. The respondents were found to have bifurcated their pipes into two categories - market/buyer brand pipes and own brand/unbranded pipes. They cleared pipes under different classifications to avail benefits under the SSI notification. The issue arose when the value of clearances exceeded the exemption limit, leading to a demand for duty payment.

Misdeclaration and Fraudulent Practices: The department alleged that the respondents willfully misdeclared their pipes as market/buyer brand pipes without specifying the actual brand names, leading to underpayment of duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the contention that the demand was barred by limitation, but the appellate tribunal found that the respondents had made false declarations to fraudulently avail themselves of duty exemptions. The misdeclaration and fraudulent practices led to the setting aside of the limitation defense.

Limitation Period for Demand: The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the demand was barred by limitation due to the respondents' regular submission of returns and declarations. However, the appellate tribunal disagreed, citing willful evasion of duty through false declarations as a reason to set aside the limitation defense and allow the demand for duty payment.

Imposition of Penalty: The penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was a point of contention. The appellate tribunal upheld the setting aside of the penalty, citing a recent Supreme Court decision that penalties under Section 11AC cannot be imposed for periods before its introduction in the statute book. Therefore, the penalty was not applicable for the disputed period of 1995-96.

In conclusion, the appellate tribunal partly allowed the appeal by upholding the demand for duty payment but setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 11AC due to its inapplicability for the relevant period.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates