Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 196 - AT - Central ExciseManufacture - assessee was engaged in the activity of manufacturing steel tabular poles and located in the state of Jammu & Kashmir paying duty on their activity - Revenue entertained the view that the activity undertaken by the assessee does not amount to manufacture - demand of interest and penalty - Held that - as Registration Certificate itself was cancelled by the Revenue themselves holding that the activity does not amounts to manufacture. Therefore, the assessee was debarred to collect the duty from their perspective buyers, as the appellant was de-barred to collect duty, in that circumstances, interest cannot be demanded from the appellant as the Revenue itself is entertained their view till today that the activity does not amount to manufacture by keeping the appeal pending before this Tribunal on the issue that the activity does not amount to manufacturing. As the revenue entertained two views and revenue is also have not taken a clear stand on the issue. In that circumstances, penalty on the assessee is not imposable. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
- Whether the activity undertaken by the assessee amounts to manufacture? - Validity of denial of Cenvat Credit and cancellation of Central Excise Registration. - Dispute regarding demand of duty, interest, and penalties. - Appeal against the orders issued by the revenue. Analysis: 1. Manufacture Activity Dispute: The case revolved around the question of whether the activity undertaken by the assessee, involving the manufacturing of steel tubular poles, amounted to "manufacture" for the purposes of taxation. Initially, the revenue contended that the activity did not qualify as manufacture, leading to the denial of Cenvat Credit and cancellation of the Central Excise Registration of the assessee. However, the Tribunal, considering the decision in the case of Advanced Steel Tubes Ltd., concluded that the activity did indeed amount to manufacture. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed on the grounds of merit. 2. Validity of Denial and Cancellation: The Revenue had denied Cenvat Credit and canceled the Central Excise Registration of the assessee based on the belief that the activity in question did not constitute manufacture. Subsequently, show-cause notices were issued to demand duty, interest, and penalties from the assessee. However, considering the change in the Revenue's stance regarding the manufacturing activity, the Tribunal found that the cancellation of the Registration Certificate was unjustified. As a result, the demand for interest and penalties was set aside, and the appeals filed by the assessee were disposed of accordingly. 3. Dispute Over Demand of Duty, Interest, and Penalties: During the pendency of the appeal filed by the Revenue, show-cause notices were issued to the assessee for the period from July 2012 onwards, seeking duty payment, interest, and penalties. The Tribunal noted the inconsistency in the Revenue's position, initially denying the manufacturing status of the activity and later acknowledging it as manufacture. Considering this inconsistency and the impact on the assessee's ability to collect duty, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, waiving the demand for interest and penalties. 4. Appeal Proceedings: Both sides agreed that the activity undertaken by the assessee amounted to manufacture, aligning with the Tribunal's decision in a similar case. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was found to lack merit and was dismissed. The assessee's appeal, challenging the cancellation of the Registration Certificate and subsequent demand notices, was upheld, leading to the setting aside of interest and penalties imposed on the assessee. In conclusion, the judgment clarified the manufacturing status of the activity, addressed the validity of the denial of Cenvat Credit and cancellation of Registration, resolved the dispute over demand of duty, interest, and penalties, and provided a comprehensive resolution to the appeals filed by both parties.
|