TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal upholds Central Excise duty demand on waste & scrap, sets aside penalties. Extended limitation period invoked.</h1> <h3>ATLAS CYCLES (HARYANA) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., DELHI-III</h3> ATLAS CYCLES (HARYANA) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., DELHI-III - 2003 (155) E.L.T. 494 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:1. Interpretation of Notification No. 89/95-C.E. regarding exemption of waste and scrap.2. Invocation of extended period of limitation for demand of Central Excise duty.3. Applicability of Sections 11AB and 11AC of the Central Excise Act.4. Imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q for non-accountal of production and clearance.Analysis:1. The case involved the interpretation of Notification No. 89/95-C.E. regarding the exemption of waste and scrap generated during the manufacture of goods. The appellants were manufacturing both dutiable and exempted goods, leading to a situation where waste and scrap attracted duty under the proviso of the notification. The dispute arose when the department found that the appellants had cleared waste and scrap without paying duty, leading to a demand for Central Excise duty, interest, and penalties.2. The issue of the extended period of limitation was raised by the appellants, arguing that they had followed the approved classification list and had not concealed any information. However, the tribunal held that the demand was not barred by limitation as the appellants contravened Rule 173B with intent to evade duty, justifying the invocation of the extended period.3. Regarding the applicability of Sections 11AB and 11AC of the Central Excise Act, the tribunal noted that these provisions were not in force during the relevant period of the demand. As a result, the penalty imposed under Section 11AC was set aside, and it was held that no interest was chargeable on the duty amount under Section 11AB.4. The imposition of a penalty under Rule 173Q for non-accountal of production and clearance was also scrutinized. The tribunal found that while the appellants had cleared dutiable waste and scrap without following central excise formalities, the authorities had not provided a necessary finding to support the penalty under this rule. Consequently, the penalty of Rs. 25,000 was set aside.In conclusion, the tribunal disposed of the appeal by confirming the demand for duty, setting aside the penalty under Section 11AC and the interest under Section 11AB, and nullifying the penalty under Rule 173Q due to lack of supporting findings.
TaxTMI 