9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (10) TMI 247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w. The parties are directed to appeal before the Tribunal for further proceedings on 14- -2006. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. 3. The facts of the case are that appellants were manufacturing readymade garments for several years, and those garments being exempt from Central Excise duty, they were not required to take Central Excise licence also. With effect from 1-5-2001, certain kinds of readymade garments became liable to Central Excise duty. Even before that, on 2-3-2001, the appellant had written a letter to the jurisdictional Supdt. Informing that we presume that we are exempt from the Central Excise duty . Subsequently, some correspondence took place between the parties. Finally on 16-8-2001, Excise officer visit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the order is not sustainable in the light of the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Foods v. CCE reported in 2005 (190) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.). The contention of the ld. Counsel is that while dealing with the parallel provisions under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, the Hon ble Supreme Court ruled that, when a rule contained several clauses, the authorities must specify the clause under which the proceedings are taken and in the absence of such a specific reliance on a relevant sub-rule, the order is not sustainable. Specific reliance is made by the ld. Counsel on the following observations in the judgment :- The Revenue has preferred an appeal from the order of the Tribunal setting aside the imposition of p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant had already written to the department stating its belief that tax is not attracted and if the department was of a different view, it should have informed the appellant accordingly directing it to take registration and pay duty. No such action was taken by the department. Instead of belated action was taken to seize goods which were still lying in stock. The submission of the ld. Counsel is that Central Excise duty is payable on goods only at the time of their removal from the place of production and no assessee could be faulted for not paying duty on stock in hand. 7. The ld. DR would point out that the assessee is a large manufacturer and, therefore, would have been aware of the legal provisions and its failure to take reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 11AC is not imposable upon them as Show Cause Notice was not issued under Section 11A(1) nor decided under Section 11A(2). I observe that in the instant case although the appellant No. 1 manufactured excisable goods without obtaining Central Excise registration but no Show Cause Notice raising demand of duty short paid, not paid or erroneously refunded was issued nor any demand has been confirmed under Section 11A(2). The Hon ble Tribunal in the case of Dhillon Kool Drinks v. CCE, 2000 (120) E.L.T. 81 has held that applicability of Section 11AC is dependent on the determination of the amount of duty liability under Section 11A(2), in the absence of such determination, no penalty can be imposed under Section 11AC. Therefore no penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
