9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (9) TMI 309 - AT - Central ExciseManufacture of plastic items on job work basis - availability of exemption under Notification No.67/95-CE - demand of interest and penalty - revenue neutrality. HELD THAT - As per exemption Notification No.67/95-CE, only those goods which are produced in the factory and used in the manufacture of finished goods which are cleared on payment of duty are exempt from duty. The goods which are finished goods by one person can be capital goods for another person. However, the same do not change the nature of the goods being finished goods that being so appellants claim to the benefit of exemption under Notification No.67/95-CE cannot be upheld - there are no merits in the submissions made on this account. The decisions relied upon by the appellant are distinguishable from the facts of the present case, in case of the M/s Zenith Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. 2010 (4) TMI 481 - CESTAT, BANGALORE relied by the appellant the issue was in respect of clearance of the capital goods, not the finished goods produced in the factory of the manufacturer. The only issue in respect of the return of the said goods on which Cenvat credit has been taken within 180 days after job-work. There are no infirmity in the impugned order - appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Demand of Central Excise Duty. 2. Demand of Interest. 3. Imposition of Penalty. 4. Revenue Neutrality. 5. Compliance with Statutory Procedures. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Demand of Central Excise Duty: The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Order-in-Original confirming the demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 27,88,702/- under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant was found to have transferred manufactured moulds to another factory without payment of duty, which was not reflected in the daily stock register and ER-1 returns. This led to the suppression of facts about the manufacture and clearance of moulds without payment of duty. The show cause notice dated 01.05.2015 demanded the recovery of this amount under the extended period. 2. Demand of Interest: The Commissioner (Appeals) also confirmed the demand of interest on the above amount under Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The interest is applicable on the unpaid duty amount as per the statutory provisions. 3. Imposition of Penalty: A penalty of Rs. 2,78,870/- was imposed under Section 11AC 1(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, with the benefit of reduced penalty under Section 11AC 1(b). The appellant's failure to comply with statutory provisions and non-reflection of transactions in the required records justified the imposition of the penalty. 4. Revenue Neutrality: The appellant argued that the demand was revenue neutral as the entire amount of tax paid would be available as Cenvat credit. However, the Tribunal noted that despite the revenue-neutral position, the appellant defied the law and engaged in contravention of statutory provisions. The Tribunal emphasized that revenue neutrality cannot be an excuse for not paying taxes and that the scheme of Cenvat credit would become redundant if non-payment of duty was allowed under the guise of revenue neutrality. 5. Compliance with Statutory Procedures: The Tribunal highlighted the importance of complying with statutory procedures. The appellant failed to account for the moulds in the Daily Stock Account and did not issue invoices for the clearances. The Tribunal referenced several case laws to underscore the necessity of strict compliance with procedural requirements, rejecting the appellant's plea of substantial compliance. The Tribunal held that the appellant's actions were in violation of Rules 4, 10, 11, and 12 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and that the appellant did not provide any plausible explanation for non-compliance. Conclusion: The Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's submissions and upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal. The decision emphasized strict adherence to statutory provisions and rejected the argument of revenue neutrality as a defense for non-payment of duty. The appeal was dismissed with the pronouncement made in open court on 04 September 2024.
|
