2018 (11) TMI 669 - AT - Central Excise

Non-payment of jute cess leviable under Section 3 of Jute Manufactures Cess Act, 1983 - differential quantity of 7385.446 MT of jute goods - Revenue submits that the documents in respect of difference of 127.840 MT was not produced before the adjudicating authority - Held that - This Tribunal in the case of Tinplate Company of India Ltd. v. CCE, Jamshedpur 2010 (3) TMI 459 - CESTAT, KOLKATA held that the assessee filed the monthly returns regularly showing clearances of impugned goods and therefore the department cannot allege suppression of facts with intent to evade duty and extended period of limitation cannot be invoked - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Non-payment of jute cess under Jute Manufactures Cess Act, 1983.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing jute products, received a Show Cause Notice for non-payment of jute cess. The Adjudicating Authority dropped a portion of the demand but confirmed a smaller amount along with interest and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the current appeal before the Tribunal.

The appellant's advocate argued that the show cause notice pertained to a specific quantity of jute goods where jute cess was allegedly unpaid. He referenced Order-in-Original and a Cost Accountants certificate to support the appellant's position. The advocate emphasized that the department was aware of the movement of goods for reprocessing and repacking, indicating no intention to misstate or suppress information. Additionally, the demand for the period beyond one year was contested as time-barred.

The Departmental Representative (DR) contended that certain documents regarding a specific quantity of jute goods were not presented before the adjudicating authority, echoing the findings of the impugned order.

Upon reviewing the records and arguments, the Tribunal noted that the show cause notice concerned a particular quantity of jute goods. The Adjudicating Authority's observations and the Cost Accountants certificate supported the appellant's claim that the difference in quantity was due to reprocessed materials from the Daily Stock Account (DSA). The certificate attested to the disposal of waste material after payment of Jute Manufactures Cess, following a common industry practice. The Tribunal cited precedents where similar situations favored the assessee, emphasizing regular filing of returns and no intent to evade duty.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appellant's appeal.