9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (11) TMI 238 - AT - Central ExciseDemand of duty - 100% EOU - exemption under Notification No. 4/97-C.E., - exemption was available if such yarn was for use on handlooms - alleged that they had sold such yarn for use in powerloom units and the said exemption was misused Held that - Duty amount demanded from them was in full discharge of the duty due from them. Demand for the balance amount was dropped and also penalty imposed on them was set aside
Issues: Misuse of exemption under Notification No. 4/97-C.E., eligibility for Notification No. 8/97-C.E., imposition of duty, interest, and penalty.
In this case, the Respondent, a 100% EOU manufacturing polyester viscose yarn, supplied yarn to a cooperative society claiming exemption under Notification No. 4/97-C.E. Investigations revealed that the yarn was misused in powerloom units instead of handlooms, prompting the Respondent to deposit duty. The Revenue contended that the Notification was not applicable to EOUs and demanded duty, interest, and penalty. The duty demand was confirmed, and penalty imposed. The Respondent appealed, arguing good faith reliance on a letter from the cooperative society exempting them from duty and certifying indigenous raw material use. The Commissioner (Appeals) found the duty demand satisfied and dropped the balance amount and penalty. The Revenue appealed, asserting the Respondents' ineligibility for Notification No. 4/97-C.E. due to non-compliance with end-use conditions and lack of evidence for Notification No. 8/97-C.E. The Respondents justified their reliance on the cooperative society's letter and claimed indigenous raw material use, supported by excise officers' certification. The Tribunal held that the Respondents acted in good faith and promptly paid duty upon discovering the issue, thus no penalty was warranted. Regarding Notification No. 8/97-C.E., the lower authorities failed to refute the Respondents' claim of using only indigenous raw materials, supported by excise officers' certification. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals) decision. As for interest, since payment was made before a relevant amendment, the Tribunal cited precedent to conclude that interest was not leviable, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) decision. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
|
