9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 452X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e granulated slag and without rendering any finding on the same, the proposal in show cause notice has been confirmed. The Tribunal noted that the Central Excise Duty has been demanded by the appellant on the sole ground of difference between the quantity of the granulated slag shown in the Annual Operational Statistical Report and the quantity shown in the monthly ER-1 return filed for the period July 2004 to March, 2008. Apart from that there is no evidence of removal of goods from the factory. Thus the Tribunal noted that the show cause notice came to be issued solely based upon the difference in the two statements - The respondent explained that during the relevant period, respondent had one granulation plant which was called old plant, one plant was set up by M/s. ACC, DCSL which is in the factory premises of the respondent which was shown as new plant in certain records and that the granulated slag emerging from this plant were cleared on payment of duty. Thus noting these facts, the Tribunal was satisfied with the explanation offered and also took note of an important fact that duty has been paid by M/s. ACC, DCSL with granulated slag, which has been recorded in the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner of CGST and Central Excise, Bolpur Commissionerate as well as Principal Commissioner, CGST Central Excise. In the result the petition is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. CEXA/28/2021 Present appeal by the revenue filed under Section 35(G)(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ( the Act for brevity) is directed against the order dated 17th May, 2018 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Regional Bench (Tribunal) in Excise Appeal no. 345 of 2010 arising out of an order in original No. 17/Commr./Bol dated 11.03.2010. The revenue has raised the following questions of law for consideration:- 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal is right and justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee without appreciating that based on Annual Dispatch Summary being an authorized Official record prepared by the respondent company for the purpose of management information and accounting purpose, the demand of central excise duty along with interest and penalty in terms of section 11A(2) read with 11AB and 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 can be made against the respondent? 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent has suppressed the actual quantum of clearance of the said goods in the statutory ER-1 returns and, therefore, proposed to invoke the extended period under the Proviso to Section 11(A)(1) of the Act. The respondent submitted the reply stating that they being a bona fide assessee as well as a Central Government Enterprise was surprised to note that the appellant department had issued a show cause notice ignoring the facts mentioned in their letter dated 28.01.2009. On the allegations made against the respondent that excisable goods which were produced or manufactured at the place of the respondent s premises and as per the show cause notice, the department s demand for granulated slag cleared under the heading new plant , it was stated that the department was required to first consider and conclusively prove that the new plant belongs to the respondent, and they were the manufacturer of granulated slag in the new plant . The appellant, the adjudicating authority was not convinced with the reply and the reason given by the appellant for rejecting the reply vide order dated 11th March, 2010 is contained in paragraph 4.7 of the order. The conclusion arrived at by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant . The said annual statement is prepared for the management information and accounting purpose. The quantity mentioned under old plant was fully in agreement with the quantity produced and cleared during the relevant as mentioned in the statutory record and in the monthly return ER-1. A specimen copy of Page No. 163 of the annual dispatch summary for the financial year 2007-08 is annexed hereto and marked C . In or around November, 2008, while auditing the books of account, the CERA raised an objection for showing dispatch of granulated slag under two headings in the said Report, i.e. old plant and new plant . The appellant by its letter dated 28.01.2009 clarified that in the Operational Statistics Report, the dispatch figure of granulated slag generated in the plants of the appellant and in the plant of DCSL was shown under the headings old plant and new plant . It was stated that the said Annual Report was not a statutory document. The said DCSL purchased molten slag from the appellant for manufacture of granulated slag, which was/is being cleared by them on payment of duty. The said DCSL is a separate entity and duly registered under the Central Excise. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
