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>Commission confirms duty liability and penalties for undervaluation of goods, stresses cooperation and disclosure</h1> <h3>IN RE : ADITYA INDUSTRIES</h3> IN RE : ADITYA INDUSTRIES - 2019 (370) E.L.T. 1498 (Sett.comm.) Issues Involved:1. Undervaluation of excisable goods.2. Incorrect adoption of assessable value.3. Non-reversal of Cenvat credit.4. Penalty and prosecution.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Undervaluation of Excisable Goods:The applicant, engaged in manufacturing Double/Triple Axle Articulated Trailers, Tippers, General Cargo Bodies, and Bulk Semi-Trailers, was found to be undervaluing these goods to evade Central Excise duty. Investigations revealed that the applicant did not include the value of tyres supplied by customers in the assessable value of trailers, leading to a duty evasion of Rs. 17,92,936/-. The applicant admitted to the undervaluation but claimed eligibility for cum-duty benefits, recalculating the duty liability to Rs. 16,05,691/-. The Commission accepted this recalculated amount and confirmed the payment of Rs. 16,05,691/- towards excise duty and Rs. 13,15,449/- towards interest.2. Incorrect Adoption of Assessable Value:The applicant was also found to have incorrectly adopted the assessable value for labour charges, paying Service Tax at 12.36% instead of Central Excise duty at 6%. The Commission, noting that the applicant had paid Service Tax at a higher rate, agreed to adjust this payment against the differential Central Excise duty demand of Rs. 13,07,524/-. The applicant undertook not to claim any refund on this account.3. Non-reversal of Cenvat Credit:The applicant failed to reverse the Cenvat credit in terms of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, for nil-rated clearances under Notification No. 12/2012-C.E. The Commission noted that the applicant had paid Service Tax on the value claimed as labour charges, which was verified and accepted by the Revenue. The Commission settled the Service Tax liability at Rs. 13,07,524/- and confirmed that no further liability subsisted as the applicant had already paid a higher percentage.4. Penalty and Prosecution:The Commission imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the applicant and Rs. 10,000/- each on the co-applicants, Shri Gopala Reddy B. and Shri K. Ramesha, for their involvement in duty evasion. The penalties were to be paid within 30 days. The Commission granted partial immunity from further penalties and immunity from prosecution, provided the penalties were paid as ordered. The Commission emphasized that these immunities could be withdrawn if any material particulars were found to be withheld or false evidence was provided.Conclusion:The Commission settled the case by confirming the duty liability at Rs. 16,05,691/- and interest at Rs. 13,15,449/-, with penalties imposed on the applicants. Immunities from further penalties and prosecution were granted, contingent upon the payment of imposed penalties within the stipulated time. The order highlighted the importance of full cooperation and truthful disclosure by the applicants in the settlement process.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
