9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 269 - AT - Central ExciseBenefit of SSI exemption Notification No. 8/2000-CE dated 01.03.2001 - clubbing the clearance value of their Banglore unit with the clearance value of Daman unit - Imposition of penalty - Held that - There is no dispute that the clearance value of Bangalore Unit would be clubbed with the assessee s Daman Units. The appellant had not disclosed this fact with the Department. The representative of the assessee company admitted in their statements before the investigating officers. The contention of the Learned Advocate is that the demand is barred by limitation, cannot be accepted. So, the demand of duty alongwith interest and imposition of penalty under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are justified. We allow an option to the assessee company to pay penalty 25% of the duty alongwith entire amount of duty and interest within 30 days from the date of communication of this order. The penalty on the Director, Shri Sachin Modi, is reduced to ₹ 15,000.00. The penalty imposed on Shri Parimal Naik, Factory manager is set-aside - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of exemption notification 2. Barred by limitation 3. Penalty imposition on Director and Factory manager 4. Clubbing clearance value of units Interpretation of Exemption Notification: The case involved the interpretation of an exemption notification related to the classification of 'Corrugated Boxes' under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant, a manufacturing company, was found to have wrongly availed the benefit of the Small Scale Industries (SSI) exemption by not clubbing the clearance value of their Bangalore unit with the Daman unit. The main contention was whether the demand of duty was justified based on the interpretation of the exemption notification. The appellant argued that the demand was barred by limitation and relied on legal precedents to support their case. Barred by Limitation: The appellant contended that the entire demand of duty was time-barred. They had already deposited a significant amount and were willing to pay a penalty under Section 11 AC of the Act. The argument was that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked in this case since it related to the interpretation of the exemption notification. The Tribunal considered this argument along with the submissions made by both parties regarding the limitation period for the demand of duty. Penalty Imposition on Director and Factory Manager: The Adjudicating Authority had imposed penalties on the Director and Factory Manager of the appellant company along with the demand of duty. The Director accepted the non-disclosure of the Bangalore unit, leading to the imposition of a penalty. However, the Tribunal found the quantum of penalty to be excessive and reduced it. On the other hand, the Factory Manager's penalty was set aside as it was deemed that the Manager acted on the instructions of the Director and the penalty imposition was not justified. The Tribunal analyzed the roles of both individuals and concluded on the appropriate penalty amounts. Clubbing Clearance Value of Units: The central issue revolved around the incorrect availing of the exemption by not clubbing the clearance value of the Bangalore unit with the Daman unit. The Revenue argued that this non-disclosure amounted to suppression of facts to evade duty payment. The Tribunal found that the appellant had indeed not disclosed this fact to the Department, as admitted by the company's representative. The Tribunal upheld the demand of duty, interest, and the imposition of penalties under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, based on the non-disclosure of the Bangalore unit's clearance value. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the demand of duty, interest, and penalties on the appellant company while allowing an option to pay a reduced penalty amount within a specified timeframe. The penalty on the Director was reduced, and the penalty on the Factory Manager was set aside. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of the exemption notification, the limitation period, and the roles of the Director and Factory Manager in the non-disclosure of the Bangalore unit's clearance value.
|
