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>Appellant's Duty Dispute: Specific Evidence Key in Central Excise Case</h1> <h3>NORTHERN TUBES PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA-I</h3> The case involved an appellant company facing allegations of manufacturing and removing tubes and pipes subject to Central Excise duty. The lower ... Demand Issues Involved:1. Allegation of manufacturing and removal of tubes and pipes involving Central Excise duty.2. Dispute regarding quantification of demand based on the entire clearance of fabricated products.Analysis:Issue 1: Allegation of manufacturing and removal of tubes and pipes involving Central Excise dutyThe case involved an appellant company engaged in the fabrication of iron and steel materials as a small-scale industry. The proceedings were initiated against them through a show cause notice alleging the manufacturing and removal of tubes and pipes subject to Central Excise duty during a specific period. The duty amount was confirmed by the lower authorities based on the invoices presented.Issue 2: Dispute regarding quantification of demand based on entire clearance of fabricated productsThe appellant contested the demand not on a legal point but on the quantification aspect. The appellant argued that while some processes might have resulted in the emergence of tubes and pipes, the duty should only apply to specific cases where such products were manufactured and cleared, as evidenced by the invoices. The Tribunal acknowledged that the appellant also cleared fabricated products after bending and welding, distinct from tubes and pipes. Therefore, the duty should only be confirmed where concrete evidence, such as specific invoices, indicated the clearance of pipes and tubes. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority to quantify the demand based on clearances of pipes and tubes reflected in the invoices issued by the appellant company.This judgment highlights the importance of concrete evidence in determining the liability for Central Excise duty, emphasizing the need for specific documentation to support duty demands. The decision clarifies that duty should only be confirmed where there is clear evidence of manufacturing and clearance of specific dutiable products, such as tubes and pipes, and not on the entirety of general fabricated products.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
