Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2004 (2) TMI 616

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... period prior to 27-9-96. 2. The respondents are manufacturers of cold-rolled strips falling under Chapter sub-heading 7211.51 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. A SCN was issued to the assessee alleging that they were clearing fresh cold-rolled strips without payment of duty in the guise of repaired and reprocessed strips which were received for such repairs under Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The duty demand was to the extent of Rs. 33,42,086/-. Penalty under Section 11AC and interest under Section 11AB were also proposed. There was also a proposal for confiscation of plant and machinery, land and buildings used in connection with the manufacture and clearance of the finished goods. It was contended o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the contentions raised by both sides and decisions of the Tribunal on the issue whether fresh goods can be cleared without payment of duty under Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules in lieu of rejected and returned duty paid goods entered the following conclusion : They had duly filed the D-3 intimations as required under the said Rule. They had also entered the details of such returned goods in the Form V register, a record statutorily required to be maintained for such purposes. Up to this point every thing was done as per procedure. Now, some of the returned goods contained certain defects and SSL, as per their own admission, had no facilities to rectify such types of defects. They replaced the rejected goods with fresh goods on a q .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... duty on the basis of the detailed work sheet submitted by them along with their reply to SCN. 5. On the basis of the materials available, the Commissioner came to conclusion that the assessee had cleared certain goods on which duty ought to have been paid and certain other goods on which they need not have to pay any duty. There was one to one substitution and duty was paid twice on certain goods and short-paid on certain other goods. The Commissioner came to the conclusion that the assessee had not made gains to the extent alleged in the SCN. Commissioner was also of the view that there was no wrong classification or undervaluation or suppression of production/illicit removal at the instance of the assessee. Substitution of the goods wa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ot discharged proper duty liability to the tune of Rs. 33,42,086/-. However, I also find from the worksheet containing details of rejected materials and subsequent despatches on payment of duty enclosed by SSL with his reply to the show cause notice that SSL had paid duty to the tune of Rs. 29,43,340/- on the returned goods while clearing them as fresh goods for the second time. In the said worksheet, they had also mentioned the invoice nos. and the dates in which such returned goods were cleared for the second time. Under normal circumstances, SSL would have paid Rs. 33,42,086/- (on the fresh goods) in addition to the duty paid on the returned goods but had paid only Rs. 29,43,340/- since, as already stated above, they had adopted wrong pr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... CN for confiscation of plant and machinery etc. under Rule 173Q(2). According to the Commissioner, the assessee committed the offences under certain wrong notions about Rule 173H and it cannot be held that there was illicit removals with intention to evade duty. The penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Rule 209A was imposed on Managing Director. 8. We do not find much merit in the contention of the appellant/Revenue that the Commissioner should have confirmed the entire duty demand. Commissioner has correctly placed reliance on the ratio of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Collector v. J.G. Glass [1988 (37) E.L.T. 248] and India Cements v. Collector [1984 (18) E.L.T. 499]. There is no contradiction in the finding of the Commissioner .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates