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 Duty Demand and Penalty for CAS-4 Non-Compliance in Sweet Industries Appeal</h1> <h3>SWEET INDUSTRIES INDIA PVT. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., AURANGABAD</h3> SWEET INDUSTRIES INDIA PVT. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., AURANGABAD - 2016 (334) E.L.T. 164 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues involved: Allegation of duty evasion, invocation of extended period of limitation, revenue-neutrality plea, challenge against demand of duty based on limitation.Summary:1. The case involved M/s. Sweet Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. appealing against a demand for Central Excise duty and penalty imposed for not following CAS-4 formula in stock transfers to their sister unit. 2. The appellant argued that the demand of duty was time-barred due to revenue-neutrality as Cenvat credit was available to their sister unit, but the original authority rejected this plea and confirmed the duty demand and penalty. 3. The appellant challenged the demand of duty solely on the ground of limitation, citing revenue-neutrality and relied on certain decisions supporting their stance. 4. The department contended that revenue-neutrality cannot resist the invocation of extended period of limitation, citing relevant case laws to support their argument. 5. The appellant distinguished the case law cited by the department, emphasizing the unique circumstances of the present case regarding inter-unit transfer of goods. 6. The Tribunal considered the submissions and found that the appellant deliberately did not follow CAS-4 formula despite being made aware, leading to suppression of facts with intent to evade duty payment. 7. The Tribunal disagreed with the appellant's argument of revenue-neutrality against the demand of duty, citing the Supreme Court's decision and upheld the invocation of the extended period of limitation. 8. The Tribunal found that the plea of revenue-neutrality was not sufficient to resist the demand of duty, as other grounds existed for invoking the extended period of limitation. 9. Consequently, the challenge against the invocation of the extended period of limitation failed, leading to the applicability of Section 11AB and Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, upholding the lower authorities' orders. 10. The appeal of the appellant was dismissed by the Tribunal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
