9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... commodity trading account, ledger etc. Thus, in spite of finding that the apparent difference is properly reconciled, still the Commissioner (Appeals) have rejected the appeal by some irrelevant observations without there being any finding of fact against the pleadings of the appellant. Impugned order set aside - appeal allowed. - Excise Appeal No. 52145 of 2022 (SM) - FINAL ORDER NO. 50743/2023 - Dated:- 2-6-2023 - MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Bipin Garg Ms. J. Kainaat, Advocates for the appellant. Ms. Tamanna Alam, Authorised Representative for the respondent. ORDER The issue involved is whether Central Excise duty of Rs. 43,87,461/- have been rightly demanded alongwith interest and equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that during the course of audit, it was noticed that the appellant holder of Central Excise registration No. AAQCS6094REM001, engaged in the manufacture of MS Ingots falling under Chapter heading 72061090, appeared to have short paid Central Excise duty of Rs.86,45,221/- during FY 2015-16, in as much as there was an apparent difference of Rs.6,91,61,767/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.3,40,62,078/- (i) This is the amount of excise duty appearing in Balance Sheet and tallied with ER-1 Return for the Year 2015-16 as per month wise summary enclosed as Annexure-6 2 Rs.3,50,99,689/- (ii) This is profit from sale and purchase in commodity operations billed to M/s Achintya Commodities, M/s Shetala Mata Commodities Pvt Ltd, and M/s Subh Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Party wise details are given in separate sheets. Rs.6,91,61,767/- Total (apparent difference in T.O. of Excisable goods) 4.2 The Appellant submits that first differential amount pertains to the excise duty, appearing in Turnover in the Financial Statements, and again reduced separately under 'Excise Duty column' on which no demand of excise duty can sustain, as it is the duty charged and recovered from the customers and paid to the Government, and is not a consideration received from the customers against any sale of goods. Hence, out of Rs. 6,91,61,767/-, an amount of Rs. 3,40,62,078/- is clearly not subject to excise duty, and demand to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Aforementioned details supported by documents clearly establishes that difference of Rs.3,50,99,689/- relates to net profit of commodities operations, which is part of total profit of commodity operations of Rs. 8,52,60,853/- The Appellant further reiterates to submit that they have all the documents available with them, and if required, can be furnished. The transaction in purchase and sale of commodity (Trading) is not liable to excise duty, as the same is merely trading in Commodities and not manufacturing activity of the appellant. The Central Excise duty is leviable on the excisable goods manufactured or produced in India as per Section 3 of Central Excise act, 1944. 5. It was further urged that even at the audit stage, the appellant had explained the apparent difference with supporting documents and also at the pre SCN stage. Appellant had also produced the relevant ledgers and invoices before the department. Appellant had also produced the CA certificate in support of the contentions. It was explained that the apparent difference is due to clerical error and the same is fully explained and reconciled from the books of accounts maintained in the ordinary course of busines ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch the appellant have traded in commodities. Further ledger for transaction charges on commodities, brokerage on commodity transaction and commodity transaction tax details have also been produced. 10. Commissioner (Appeals) observed as follows:- 6.1 The appellant has though contested that total net sales from commodity operations was Rs. 8,52,60,853/-, out of which the disputed amount of Rs.3,50,99,689/- was wrongly reported under 'Sales of Products' and remaining amount was shown separately. I find that the appellant has produced ledger of commodity trading account, which shows closing balance as Rs.8,52,60,953/- The appellant has also produced ledgers for all the three commodity brokers namely M/s Achintya Commodities, M/s Shetala Mata Commodities Pvt. Ltd and M/s Subh Commodities, through which the appellant traded in commodities and ledgers for 'Transaction Charges on Commodities', Brokerage on Commodity Transaction and 'Commodity Transaction Tax'. From the ledgers produced by the appellant it is evident that the turnover from commodity operations was Rs. 8,52,60,853/-. I further find that in the balance sheet of the appellant for the year 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
