9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 19 - AT - Central ExciseProcess amounting to manufacture - fabrication of aluminium composite panels (ACP) falling under subheading 7610.90 of CETA, 1985 - SSI Exemption - time limitation - HELD THAT - Despite the various submissions given by the appellant, the issue stands decided by the jurisdictional High Court in CCE., MANGALORE VERSUS MANGALORE REFINERIES PETROCHEMICALS LTD. 2010 (9) TMI 756 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT . As such, judicial discipline requires that this Bench follow the Hon ble High Court s order, as the same has not been stayed or set aside by a higher Court - Therefore, we are not in a position to appreciate the submissions of the appellants as far as the merits of the case are concerned - the activity of the appellant in cutting, etc., of aluminium composite panels for the purpose of cladding amounts to manufacture. Time Limitation - HELD THAT - The appellants have a fair case in terms of limitation. As submitted by the appellants, the appellants have given a letter to the department as back as 1.4.2003/04 informing the department about their activity undertaken in respect of ACPs; they have been regularly filing ER-3 returns and they have furnished the figures relating to the value of clearances of ACPS vide letters dated 6.1.2005 and 11.4.2005. We find reasons to believe that it is because of a bona fide belief the appellants held, they did not submit the figures relating to the clearances of ACP in their ER-3 returns. For this reason, alone, suppression, etc., with an intent to evade payment of duty cannot be invoked - the demand is hit by limitation. The appeal is partly allowed by way of remand for the purpose of computation of duty for the normal period.
Issues:
Manufacture of excisable goods under SSI Notification, demand of central excise duty, imposition of penalty under Section 11AC, suppression of facts, classification and valuation of goods, judicial discipline, limitation of demand. Manufacture of Excisable Goods under SSI Notification: The appellants, engaged in the fabrication of aluminium composite panels (ACP), were availing the benefit of SSI Notification No.8/2003-CE. The Department issued a show-cause notice demanding central excise duty and cess for the fabrication of ACP. The lower authorities confirmed the demand, leading to the appeal. Demand of Central Excise Duty and Penalty Imposition: The appellant argued that cutting ACP into required sizes did not amount to manufacturing a new product, citing Supreme Court decisions. The Tribunal had previously ruled in favor of the appellants in a similar case. The appellants claimed no suppression, as they had informed the department about ACP cladding and submitted returns. The Department contended that the process of cutting ACP constituted manufacture, referring to a High Court judgment favoring the Revenue. Suppression of Facts and Limitation of Demand: The appellants argued that due to a bona fide belief that ACP was not excisable, there was no suppression. The Tribunal agreed that the demand was time-barred, considering the appellants' regular filing of returns and the change in the High Court's decision over time. The appeal was partly allowed, setting aside the order to the extent of limitation and remanding for duty computation for the normal period, while the penalty was set aside. Classification and Valuation of Goods: The appellant contended that the High Court should not have entertained the appeal, as it related to classification and valuation, which should be addressed by the Supreme Court. However, the Tribunal upheld the High Court's decision due to judicial discipline and lack of a stay or set aside by a higher court. The activity of cutting ACP for cladding was deemed manufacturing by the Tribunal. This detailed analysis covers the various issues involved in the legal judgment, including the manufacturing process, demand of excise duty, suppression of facts, classification and valuation of goods, and the limitation of demand, providing a comprehensive overview of the case and its legal implications.
|
