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 reduces penalties for SSI unit, stresses record-keeping</h1> <h3>BL. KAPUR & SONS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JALLANDHAR</h3> BL. KAPUR & SONS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JALLANDHAR - 2004 (177) E.L.T. 948 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:Confiscation of goods, redemption fine, penalty imposition, value of clearances for home consumption, clandestine removal, seizure of goods, confiscation validity, duty liability, trade practices, exemption limit for SSI unit.Confiscation of Goods and Redemption Fine:The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal confirming the confiscation of goods, redemption fine, and penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority. The Appellants manufactured pipe fittings without being registered with the Central Excise Department. The goods were intercepted during transit without proper documentation, leading to confiscation. The Appellants argued that the department's adopted value was inflated, citing trade practices of offering discounts on listed prices. However, the Department contended that the lack of documentation and records justified confiscation. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation but reduced the redemption fine and penalty considering the Appellants' status as an SSI unit and their exemption limit.Duty Liability and Exemption Limit:The Appellants claimed that their value of clearances fell below the specified limit for duty payment exemption. They argued that being an SSI unit, they were not required to issue invoices along with goods and that the seized goods were not intended for clandestine removal. However, the Department highlighted the absence of proper documentation and maintained that the Appellants failed to demonstrate a trade practice of offering substantial discounts on listed prices. The Tribunal emphasized that even though duty exemption applied, the Appellants were obligated to maintain private records and issue delivery challans for excisable goods. The Tribunal agreed with the Department that the goods were liable for confiscation due to the lack of proper documentation, but reduced the redemption fine and penalty due to the Appellants' SSI unit status and exemption limit.Conclusion:The Tribunal's decision affirmed the confiscation of goods but reduced the redemption fine and penalty imposed on the Appellants. It emphasized the importance of maintaining proper records and documentation even for excisable goods eligible for duty exemption. The judgment highlighted the necessity for SSI units to adhere to simplified procedures for record-keeping and clearance processes, despite exemption from certain formalities.
TaxTMI 