9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 302X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fact arrived at by the Tribunal holding that assessee is neither a manufacturer of excisable goods nor it has used purchased goods for manufacturing of other goods, no duty can be demanded under Section 11A(1) of the Act, 1994. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - R/TAX APPEAL NO. 29 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 30-1-2020 - MR. J.B. PARDIWALA AND MR. BHARGAV D. KARIA JJ. Appearance: MR ANKIT SHAH(6371) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ORAL ORDER (PER : MR.BHARGAV D. KARIA) 1. This Tax Appeal is filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short the Act, 1944 ) at the instance of the revenue and is directed against the order dated 03.06.2019, passed by the Customs, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ground that it had to pay the excise duty and MODVAT credit on raw materials and capital goods was required to be reversed. The respondent therefore, filed Special Civil Application No.14611 of 2013 before this Court wherein, vide order dated 09.12.2003, the respondent was asked by the Court to give bank guarantee of ₹ 5 Lakhs and was permitted to remove the goods to that extent. 3.4. During the period from 18.12.2003 to 26.10.2005, the respondent removed and sold the old, used, discarded and unserviceable parts, components, scarp, etc. in 42 bills, which were issued from 06.06.2003 to 07.08.2003, and sales were made by Bill No.51 to 371, from 18.12.2003 to 26.10.2005. 3.5. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise issued a s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the goods valued at ₹ 7,74,44,540/-, though not available physically, was liable for confiscation, under the proviso to Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. As the goods were not actually available, redemption fine of ₹ 25 Lakhs, in lieu of confiscation under Section 34 of the Act, 1944, was levied. Further penalty of ₹ 10 Lakhs, upon the partner of the respondent, was also levied. 3.9. The respondent therefore, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, in original, passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 3.10. It was contended on behalf of the respondent that no duty is payable, as the respondent cannot be considered as a manufacturer. It was contended that as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds. In this fact, the appellant has neither manufactured excisable goods nor even there an issue of availment of Cenvat Credit on such purchased goods. In this effect, when the appellant is admittedly not a manufacturer of excisable goods, no duty can be demanded under Section 11A(i) if at all there is any duty liability in respect of goods purchased by the appellant, it is the manufacturer who is supposed to pay the duty and if at all there is any liability, it will arise against M/s Gujarat Narmada Auto Ltd. Since the appellant have purchased the goods in auction, the department is free to settle their excise duty with Official Liquidator and not from the appellant. It is also not the case of the department that dismantling of capital goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
