9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 1579 - AT - Central ExciseNon-payment of Central Excise Duty - manufacture of Ready Mix Concrete (RMC) - benefit of N/N. 4/97-CE. - whether the ready mix concrete has been manufactured in Pen and Pagdhe and moved thereafter to the construction site or it was manufactured at site? HELD THAT - The appellant could not place any evidence contrary to the findings recorded by the learned Commissioner that the ready mix concrete was manufactured not at site but at Pen and Pagdhe. Consequently, the appellants are not eligible to the benefit of the said notification No. 4/97-CE dated 1.3.1997 for the period in dispute. Penalty on Director - HELD THAT - No specific evidence brought on record pointing out the role of the Directors towards wrong availement of benefit of the said notification intentionally. Since the order was directed to be confined for the normal period of limitation, there are no justification imposing personal penalty on the Director. The company s appeal is dismissed - the Director s appeal is allowed.
Issues:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Original No. BEL/06/BEL-II/COMMR/2010-11 dated 23.08.2010. 2. Demand of Central Excise duty for the period from July, 1993 to March, 1998. 3. Reduction of demand to &8377; 10,72,683/- with interest and imposition of penalties. 4. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 4/97-CE. 5. Imposition of penalty on the Director under Rule 209A of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. 6. Dispute regarding the manufacturing location of Ready Mix Concrete (RMC). 7. Evidence analysis and findings by the learned Commissioner. 1. Appeal against Order-in-Original: The appeals were filed against Order-in-Original No. BEL/06/BEL-II/COMMR/2010-11 dated 23.08.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Belapur. The demand for Central Excise duty for the period from July, 1993 to March, 1998 was confirmed by the learned Commissioner with interest and penalties. 2. Demand of Central Excise duty: A show-cause notice was issued on 03.08.1998 demanding duty of &8377; 16,18,00,388/- for the mentioned period. The demand was reduced to &8377; 10,72,683/- with interest and penalties imposed under Rule 173Q(1) and Rule 209A of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. 3. Reduction of demand and penalties: The demand was reduced to &8377; 10,72,683/- with interest and penalties imposed on the appellant company and the Director under specified rules. The appellant contested the penalties imposed, claiming no suppression of facts and lack of Director's involvement in the alleged wrong availment. 4. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 4/97-CE: The appellant argued for eligibility under Notification No. 4/97-CE, stating that Ready Mix Concrete was manufactured at the construction site and used exclusively for specific projects, thus entitled to exemption. The Commissioner's findings indicated otherwise. 5. Imposition of penalty on the Director: The imposition of penalties on the Director under Rule 209A of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 was contested by the appellant, citing lack of specific evidence implicating the Director in the alleged wrong availment of benefits. 6. Dispute regarding manufacturing location of RMC: The key issue revolved around whether Ready Mix Concrete was manufactured at the site or at Pen and Pagdhe and then moved to the construction site. The Hon'ble Supreme Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration to ascertain the manufacturing location. 7. Evidence analysis and findings by the learned Commissioner: The learned Commissioner, after analyzing the evidence on record, concluded that Ready Mix Concrete was not manufactured at the site but at Pen and Pagdhe. The appellant failed to provide contrary evidence, leading to the dismissal of the company's appeal and the allowance of the Director's appeal. The imposition of penalties on the Director was deemed unjustified due to the lack of specific evidence implicating the Director. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues involved, arguments presented by both sides, key legal points considered, and the final decision rendered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI.
|
