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 - 2014 (12) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2014 (12) TMI 275 - AT - Central Excise


Issues involved:
1. Duty demand on weaving hard waste, chindi waste, and selvedges waste.
2. Applicability of longer limitation period under proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis:
1. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of various products falling under different chapters of the Central Excise Tariff. A show cause notice was issued for demand of duty on weaving hard waste, chindi waste, and selvedges waste, alleging that these items were excisable but cleared without payment of duty. The Joint Commissioner confirmed the duty demands along with interest and imposed penalties. The appellant contended that the demand was time-barred as they had filed classification declarations during the disputed period, claiming exemption under Notification No. 27/95-C.E. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal, except for setting aside one penalty. The appellant argued that the duty demand was not sustainable as the department did not object to the claimed exemption during the disputed period.

2. The Tribunal observed that the duty demand lacked clarity regarding the tariff heading and applicable duty rate for the mentioned wastes. The appellant had consistently declared these items in classification declarations and claimed exemption, which was not objected to by the department. Therefore, the appellant could not be accused of suppressing relevant information to evade duty payment. The Tribunal held that the show cause notice issued for recovery of allegedly short-paid duty during the disputed period was time-barred, as the appellant had not concealed any material facts. Consequently, the order upholding the duty demand and penalty imposition was deemed unsustainable and set aside. The appeal was allowed, and the miscellaneous application for stay extension was dismissed as the appeal had been disposed of.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates