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 rules in favor of appellants in Central Excise case, upholding duty exemption claim</h1> <h3>PUSHPAM CERAMICS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE</h3> PUSHPAM CERAMICS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE - 2004 (175) E.L.T. 258 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues involved:1. Confirmation of demand by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and imposition of penalties.2. Challenge to the demand on the grounds of limitation and merits.3. Requirement of establishing marketability before collecting duty.4. Grounds of limitation and intention to evade duty.5. Clarification on waiver of demand for revenue neutrality.6. Availing concessional rate of duty and eligibility for duty exemption.Issue 1: The Commissioner confirmed a demand of Rs. 2,28,806/- out of a total demand of Rs. 26,85,945/- against the appellant, along with penalties under Section 11 AC and Rule 209A for abetting duty evasion. The appeal contested this confirmation and penalties.Issue 2: The appellants challenged the demand on the basis of limitation and merits. They argued that the department failed to establish the marketability of the product before attempting to collect duty. The appellants also claimed there was no intention to evade duty as any duty collected would be available to the customer for Modvat credit. However, the department contended that the conversion of PVA into PVA solution was not disclosed, constituting a suppression of facts warranting duty collection within the extended period of limitation.Issue 3: The appellants argued that the product's marketability needed to be established before duty collection. The department countered by highlighting the standard practice in the industry of sending PVA powder for conversion into solution, indicating marketability.Issue 4: The appellants contested the demand on the grounds of limitation and lack of intent to evade duty, claiming that any duty collected would benefit the customer through Modvat credit. However, the department asserted that the non-disclosure of the PVA conversion constituted a suppression of facts warranting duty collection within the extended period.Issue 5: The concept of waiver of demand for revenue neutrality was discussed, with reference to the case law clarifications. The submission to quash the demand on the grounds of revenue neutrality was deemed unacceptable.Issue 6: The appellants availed a concessional rate of duty for their products and argued for duty exemption for the PVA solution based on cumulative clearances not exceeding the limit of Rs. 50 lakhs. The Tribunal noted the factual position and upheld the appellants' claim for duty exemption based on the different modes of duty payment for various goods, setting aside the Commissioner's order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief.In conclusion, the judgment addressed the challenges raised by the appellants regarding duty demands, penalties, marketability, limitation, revenue neutrality, and duty exemption, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellants based on the different modes of duty payment and cumulative clearances not exceeding the specified limit.
TaxTMI 