9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (5) TMI 438X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivalent amount under Section 11 AC and a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on M/s. Peddar and Peddar, other appellants, under Rule 209A for abetting duty evasion. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the appellants M/s. Pushpam Ceramics are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under sub-heading Nos. 3207.90, 2905.90 and 3206.10. In the course of internal audit, it was revealed that the appellants were also engaged in the manufacture of an item viz., PVA liquid (Polyvinyl Alcohol Solution) on the basis of job work. As per Chapter Note 6 to Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 conversion of one primary form of plastic into another plastic form (such as powder into solution) amounts to manufacture. It as revealed that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is sought to be collected at their end would be available to the customer (principal manufacturer) for availment of Modvat credit. This submission is also without any basis, for the simple reason that, the fact of conversion of PVA into PVA solution has not been disclosed to the department and therefore this was a case of suppression of facts and duty is rightly demanded by invoking extended period of limitation. 8. The concept of waiver of demand on the ground of revenue neutrality or waiver of penal action for non-payment of duty on inputs, has been clarified by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jay Yuhshin Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi, reported in 2000 (119) E.L.T. 718 (Tri. LB) to mean that the revenue n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11 thereof, the cumulative value for 1996-97 is indicated as Rs. 5,17,792/-, that for 1997-98 it is Rs. 11,93,525/- for 1998-99 it is Rs. 20,26,511/- and for 1999-2000 it is Rs. 3,04,783/-. The appellants placed reliance on the judgment of Tribunal reported in 1993 (63) E.L.T. 759 (Tri.) in the case of Faridabad Tools Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, wherein it has been held that, a manufacturer is permitted to take benefit of full exemption as well as partial payment in terms of Notification No. 175/86-CE provided the goods are different in each mode of duty payment. This judgment has been confirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court as reported in 1996 (82) E.L.T. A149. As already stated full exemption is sought in respect of goods fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
