9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 599X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsultant on behalf of the appellant that the dispute on the liability to excise duty on such activity is currently pending before the Tribunal in their own case for an earlier period and that during the pendency of the dispute they had been compelled to take registration on 19th May 2015 following which their premises were searched on 26th May 2015 and stock 835.6 MTs of raw material found in excess led to proceedings being initiated against the appellant. 2. The background of the dispute is that fertiliser was exempt from duties of central excise duty with effect from 1st March 2011 on all goods falling under chapter 31 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 other than those which clearly do not find use as fertilisers. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Learned Consultant for appellant is that the products are not liable to excise duty, that the taxability is in dispute before the Tribunal and that that it was the incorrect interpretation of the order under section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 that led to forced registration of the unit under Central Excise Act, 1944. Notwithstanding the scope of the dispute between the appellant and the Revenue, Learned Counsel for appellant submits that the redemption fine that has been imposed in lieu of confiscation is much too high considering the goods that were found to be in excess had already borne the burden of duty at the time of provisional release. It is his further contention that the allegation of late filing of returns is not tena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lid and the fine thereof is not imposable. Accordingly redemption fine of Rs. 2,78,953 is also set aside. 6. Admittedly, two of the returns, namely, for June 2015 and October 2015 had not been filed on time. The pendency of dispute does not in any way affect the responsibility of complying with the provisions of Central Excise Rules once the registration has been obtained. Having failed to do so, the penal consequences must follow. However, there is no requirement for imposing penalty for the period pertaining to the one before the registration is taken up. Accordingly, penalty for late filing of returns is limited to Rs. 40,000/-. 7. For the above reasons the impugned order is modified by setting aside the confiscation and the redemption ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
