Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1594 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine removal - demand based on the slips recovered from the M/s Baheti Dyechem, whch are relating to trading activity - HELD THAT - Examination of the slips recovered from premise of Baheti Dyechem at Bhiilwara shows that Annexure C is merely a summary of the said slips. In these circumstances it is apparent that the entire demand of duty is based on the slips recovered from the premise of M/s Baheti Dyechem at Bhilwara. The Commissioner after examining the documents has come to the conclusion that slips recovered at the premise of M/s Baheti Dyechem at Bhilwara are not relating to production activity but relating to trading activity. The impugned order comes to the conclusion that the slips recovered from the M/s Baheti Dyechem do not relates to production activity but trading activity. In these circumstances, the Annexure C to the SCN cannot held to be related to the manufacturing/ production activity as the same is based solely on the slips recovered from the M/s Baheti Dyechem at Bhilwara. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Appeal against demand of service tax, penalty, and interest based on recovered slips; Discrepancy in activities pre and post takeover by new unit; Assessment of evidence for manufacturing activity; Commissioner's conclusion on slips recovered from trading premises; Validity of demand based on Annexure C. Analysis: The appeal was filed against the demand of service tax, penalty, and interest by M/s Maheshwari Dyechem. The appellant argued that prior to the takeover by M/s Durrent Chemical Industries, the activities were different from those post-takeover. They contended that the evidence post-January 1997 cannot be applied to the earlier period. The Tribunal remanded the matter for reassessment to determine if the manufacturing process and chemicals used were different before and after the takeover. The Commissioner's order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication. The demand of duty on the appellant was quantified in Annexure C of the show cause notice. The Commissioner concluded that the slips recovered from the trading premises were related to trading activity, not production. The appellant argued that since the slips were related to trading, no duty demand alleging manufacturing could be made based on Annexure C. The Commissioner's observation was crucial in this regard. The Tribunal found that the entire demand of duty was based on slips recovered from the trading premises. As the Commissioner determined that these slips were related to trading activity, not manufacturing, the demand could not be upheld. The appeal was allowed based on the conclusion that Annexure C could not be linked to manufacturing activity. The judgment was pronounced on 24.04.2019 by the Tribunal.
|