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>Supreme Court affirms duty payment & penalties in job work dispute</h1> <h3>M/s Phaarmasia Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad</h3> M/s Phaarmasia Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad - 2015 (319) E.L.T. 360 (SC) Issues:- Appeal against the order of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dismissal- Appellant's job work for Procter & Gamble (P&G)- Discrepancy in assessable value calculation by the appellant- Show cause notice for demanding differential duty- Imposition of penalties by the Commissioner- Appeal to CESTAT and subsequent dismissal- Challenge against invoking extended period of limitation- Argument regarding the intentional omission by the appellant- Appeal submission on reliance on P&G's cost audit report- Commissioner's analysis on invoking proviso to Section 11A- Dismissal of the appeal by the Supreme CourtAnalysis:The Supreme Court heard an appeal challenging the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's (CESTAT) order dismissing the appellant's appeal against the Commissioner of Central Excise's decision. The appellant had engaged in job work for Procter & Gamble (P&G) under an agreement signed in December 1994. The issue arose when the Department scrutinized the appellant's cost sheet and found a discrepancy in the assessable value calculation, specifically regarding the omission of 'other works overhead' element. This led to a show cause notice being issued, demanding a significant amount as differential duty for a specified period, along with penalties.The Commissioner adjudicated the matter, demanding the payment of the differential duty and imposing penalties. The appellant then appealed to CESTAT, which dismissed the appeal but set aside one of the imposed penalties. In the subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court, the appellant's counsel did not dispute the necessity of including 'other works overhead' in the cost calculation for excise duty payment. However, the appellant contested the Department's invocation of the extended period of limitation, arguing that it would render the demand for a specific period time-barred.The Court noted that while the appellant claimed innocence based on reliance on P&G's cost audit report for recalculating the duty, it was the appellant who finalized the costing based on the report provided by P&G. The Court highlighted the Commissioner's findings that the appellant's actions amounted to suppression of facts and contravention of Central Excise Act provisions with intent to evade duty payment. The Court upheld the Commissioner's decision to invoke the proviso to Section 11A, concluding that the appellant's appeal lacked merit and subsequently dismissed it.
TaxTMI 