9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 443X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nation for not accounting duty on these items except raising contention that these are scrap - demand upheld. Difference in the quantity of baby receiving blankets - appellant claims it to be inadvertent error - Held that: - The Tribunal in the case of SHRI RENUGA SOFT X TOWELS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADURAI [2008 (9) TMI 694 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] has set aside the confiscation and penalties and the proceedings have attained finality. The Tribunal has found that fabrics were in semi finished conditions and were not fit for removal as final product (baby receiving blankets) - thus, the difference in quantity is only an error and the demand raised on account of difference in quantity of baby receiving blankets, also do not sus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cuments recovered pursuant to the search, the department felt that the appellant had adopted depreciation rates wrongly, thereby resulting in short payment of duty on capital goods, both indigenous and imported. Secondly, certain capital goods like plastic containers etc. were allegedly not declared at the time of debonding. Thirdly, four nos. of imported Picanol looms were found removed before debonding and the appellant had paid the duty on these goods only after debonding. Fourthly, there was apparent variation in the quantity of finished products namely, Baby Receiving Blankets disclosed by appellant in the ER-1 returns for May 2003 and in the list furnished to the Development Commissioner at the time of debonding. In the ER-1 returns, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the demand of ₹ 12,543/- (Rupees Twelve thousand five hundred and forty three only) being the Customs duty payable by M/s.Sri Renuga Soft-X Towels, Towels Division, as detailed in the Annexure III enclosed to the Show Cause Notice under Sec. 28 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962. (v) I hereby confirm the demand of ₹ 6,16,116/- (Rupees Six lakh sixteen thousand one hundred and sixteen only) being Central Excise duty payable by M/s.Sri Renuga Soft-X Towels, Towels Division, as detailed in the Annexure V enclosed to the Show Cause Notice under Sec. 11 A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. (vi) I hereby impose a penalty of ₹ 12,57,706/- (Rupees Twelve lakh fifty seven thousand seven hundred and six only) on M/s.Sri Renu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods other than computer and computer peripherals are eligible upto 90% depreciation. The Board's circular No.27/98-Cus. dt. 21.4.98 and 43/98-Cus. dt. 26.6.98 stands modified to this extent; that therefore the contention of the department that appellant is eligible only for 10% depreciation in terms of Notification No.22/2003-CE and 52/2003-CE is incorrect and inapplicable for the relevant period. 2.3 With regard to demand of ₹ 1,76,030/- on various plastic containers (capital goods) not accounted for, appellant submitted that these items were used for movement and transportation of goods within the factory. The purchase cost of each unit is less than ₹ 5,000/-. Since the life expectancy of these items is very short these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the demand of duty before removal of goods is premature. On instructions from department to declare stock of finished goods, appellant had based figures in the production register while furnishing the stock of goods; that therefore the error of furnishing the quantity as 6990.47. Appellant thereafter had filed revised returns; that this error cannot be concluded as clandestine removal of goods. She also added that the department had issued separate show cause notice alleging clandestine removal of baby receiving blankets on the basis of above difference in the documents. The Tribunal vide Final Order No.955/2008 dt. 05.09.2008 had set aside the confiscation and penalty imposed. She pleaded to allow the appeal. 3. Against this ld. A. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.05.2000 is applicable to the period under dispute. In para-17 of the said circular, it is provide that depreciation upto 90% is eligible on capital goods other than computer and computer peripherals, at the time of debonding . Therefore contention of the department that Notification No.22/2003-CE and 52/2003-CE are applicable is factually and legally wrong. 5.1 With regard to demand of ₹ 1,76,030/- we are able to see that appellant has not accounted for these items taking the view that these are merely scrap. The same cannot be acceded to. Appellant has not offered any satisfactory explanation for not accounting duty on these items except raising contention that these are scarp. It is also contended that in case duty is paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
