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>Appeal Success: Reduced penalties, annulled confiscation, and overturned decisions based on lack of intent.</h1> <h3>M/s MB Laminators Versus CCE Vapi</h3> M/s MB Laminators Versus CCE Vapi - 2013 (289) E.L.T. 497 (Tri. - Ahmd.) Issues involved:Appeal against non-confirmation of penalty, confiscation of seized goods, reduction of penalties, reversal of CENVAT Credit, imposition of penalties, confiscation of unaccounted goods.Analysis:1. The appeal involved multiple issues arising from the same impugned order. The appellant, a Central Excise registered unit, faced charges related to excess stock, availing excess CENVAT Credit, and confiscation of seized goods with penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority.2. The first appellate authority reduced penalties and redemption fine but upheld non-eligible CENVAT Credit and confiscation of unaccounted goods, leading to the subsequent appeals.3. The appellant's counsel argued that unrecorded goods were awaiting quality control clearance, not for clandestine purposes, citing a relevant judgment and claiming inadvertent error in availing CENVAT Credit.4. The Departmental Representative contended that penalties should be imposed for wrongly availed CENVAT Credit due to the duty paid unit's duty awareness.5. The issue of confiscation hinged on whether unaccounted goods were intended for duty evasion, with the Departmental Representative invoking Rule 25(1)(b) and a Tribunal decision.6. The judge considered both parties' submissions and evidence, emphasizing the partner's statement on goods awaiting quality control clearance and the proper accounting of raw materials and finished goods in private records.7. Referring to a High Court judgment, the judge concluded that there was no intention to evade duty, as the goods were held for quality control tests, not for clandestine clearance, leading to the setting aside of confiscation.8. Consequently, since the confiscation was annulled, penalties on the appellant and its partner were also set aside, and the impugned order upholding penalties and confiscation was overturned with consequential relief.This detailed analysis covers the various legal issues, arguments presented, relevant case laws cited, and the judge's reasoning leading to the final decision on each aspect of the appeal.
TaxTMI 