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>Government rejects revision application on duty for breakage of water bottles, Circular applicability, and remission denial.</h1> <h3>IN RE : HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD.</h3> IN RE : HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD. - 2013 (291) E.L.T. 133 (G.O.I.) Issues:- Demand of duty on breakage of aerated water and mineral water bottles.- Applicability of Circulars and Trade Notices issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs.- Denial of remission of duty by the Commissioner (Appeals).- Non-compliance with procedures prescribed in the Central Excise Manual.- Application of Central Government's order on an identical matter.- Prospective or retrospective effect of a clarificatory Circular dated 9-7-2010.Analysis:1. Demand of Duty on Breakage: The case involved M/s. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. facing demand of duty due to breakage of aerated water and mineral water bottles in their unit. The jurisdictional Central Excise Officers issued Show Cause Notices, leading to the confirmation of duty demand, interest, and penalty by the adjudicating authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand of duty but set aside the penalty, prompting the applicant to file a revision application.2. Applicability of Circulars and Trade Notices: The applicant argued that Circulars of the Central Board of Excise and Customs (C.B.E. & C.) were binding on the department, citing Circulars related to tolerance limits for breakages. The Circulars specified a tolerance limit of 0.5% for breakages of aerated water bottles, which could be written off subject to certain conditions. The applicant contended that they complied with the conditions specified in the Circulars, thus justifying remission of duty.3. Denial of Remission of Duty: The Commissioner (Appeals) denied remission of duty based on the applicant's alleged failure to follow prescribed procedures in the Central Excise Manual. However, the applicant argued that the breakages occurred within the tolerance limits specified in the Circulars, and thus, remission should not have been denied.4. Non-Compliance with Procedures: The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand of duty on the grounds of the applicant's non-compliance with the procedures outlined in the Central Excise Manual. The applicant contested this decision, stating that the destruction process outlined in the Manual was not applicable to their situation of breakages during handling and storage.5. Application of Central Government's Order: The applicant raised the issue of a Central Government order passed in an identical matter concerning their sister unit, arguing that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not applying the same order in their case. However, the Government found that the Circular dated 9-7-2010 clarified the issue of breakage tolerance and remission, making the previous order inapplicable.6. Prospective or Retrospective Effect of Clarificatory Circular: The applicant contended that the Circular dated 9-7-2010 should not have retrospective effect. However, the Government held that clarificatory circulars have retrospective application, citing relevant judicial decisions, and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order based on this interpretation.In conclusion, the Government rejected the revision application for being devoid of merit, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) order regarding the demand of duty on breakage of aerated water and mineral water bottles, the applicability of Circulars, denial of remission of duty, and the retrospective effect of the clarificatory Circular.
TaxTMI 