9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (7) TMI 640X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad evaded payment of duty, that they had mis-declared the value of the dutiable goods to certain customers and had adopted different modes of documents for realisation of sale proceeds thereby indulging in short payment of duty, that they fabricated documents by fragmenting production that had taken place at its premises and cleared the goods under the documents of M/s. Aditya Packaging, a proprietary company floated with the wife of the Managing Director of the applicant company as Proprietrix, without any production facility or any other infrastructure, and that they had utilized common inputs both for dutiable goods and goods which attract nil rate of duty without maintaining separate set of accounts for the said goods and failed to pay 8% of the price for the final products cleared under nil rate of duty in terms of the Rule 57CC of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 (CER, for short). The Notice accordingly proposes to demand from the main applicant duty of Rs.23,59,099/- for the period 1996-97 to 99-2000 in terms of Proviso to Section 11A(1) and Rs.13,269/- under Sec.11D of the CEA and Rs. 9,99,648/- in terms of Rule 57CC read with Rule 57-I of the CER. The notice also p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of incorrect value of goods supplied to certain customers and realization of balance of the sale proceeds by different mode of documentation, the clubbing of value of clearances of M/s. Aditya Packaging with the value of clearance of the main applicant. However, they have pointed out certain calculation errors in duty quantification. In addition, they also seek the value realized to be deemed as cum-duty value with benefit of abatement under Sec. 4 (4)(d)(ii) of the CEA to determine the correct assessable value and consequent duty liability. Similarly, in the case of modvat availed inputs utilized both for manufacture of dutiable and exempted products without maintenance of separate records and without debiting an amount of 8% of the sale value of the exempted final goods, the applicant has relied on Circular No.591/28/2001-CX (F. No. 267/58/2001-CX.8) dt. 16-10-2001 of the Central Board of Excise Customs, and pleaded that the amount to be reversed would be only the quantum of Modvat credit availed on such inputs utilized in the manufacture of exempted goods. Accordingly, on account of these reasons, the applicant has admitted lesser duty liability than that demanded in the SCN. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts all the allegations in the SCN (except for one) and has sought for reduction in duty liability on account of calculation mistakes pointed out by him, and the cum-duty nature of the value adopted in the SCN to determine the assessable value and duty due, as also his liability to pay only to the extent of credit on modvat availed inputs utilized in exempted goods, based on the Board s circular. Therefore, the Bench does not find it necessary to go into the dutiability, per se, which is admitted and holds that the correct quantum of duty due can be determined after proper examination of these contentions at the time of final settlement. 9. However, one question calling for immediate decision, and relevant for admission, is whether the applicant disputes on interpretation of classification of excisable goods under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 . The applicant s plea in this regard is that they are questioning the very excisability of the product obtained by them by slitting wrappers received from AVT, with the resultant product returned to the customer being slit wrappers which can be removed from the gummed papers and used as wrapper for the cartons. Therefore, their plea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ottom printed labels approx. in 120 gsm paper punched at PGL and that all the above supplies mentioned were for the box orders placed with PGL; that on the said supplies from PGL, they have made folding and pasting operations at their premises and that all the parts of the box have been supplied by PGL after punching and that the PGL supplied fully finished boxes by the end of 1999 onwards (emphasis supplied). Therefore, as per the statement of the Senior Manager of the customer of the applicant, the customer had placed orders for boxes that the supplies of parts after punching etc. supplied by the main applicant was with reference to orders of boxes, that out of the parts received the customer had folded and pasted to form a box, and that fully finished boxes were supplied from 1999. Prima facie, these go to indicate that the main applicant s plea that the printed wrapper on which differential duty is being demanded, is not excisable as the only process done in their premises is punching, is to say the least contentious requiring verification. From the aforesaid statement, the slitted wrapper appears to have been one of the parts of cartons (boxes), for which orders had been plac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
