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 decision: Set aside duty demand on unmentioned items, upheld other duties, penalties, and interest.</h1> <h3>SHREEJI METAL WORKS Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI-II</h3> SHREEJI METAL WORKS Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI-II - 2008 (227) E.L.T. 549 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:1. Duty demand on lids/bottom not mentioned in central excise invoice2. Duty demand on containers cleared without payment3. Duty demand on metal scrap not accounted for4. Confiscation of unaccounted lids/bottoms5. Penalty imposition under various clausesAnalysis:Issue 1:The appellants were found to clear lids/bottoms along with metal containers without mentioning them in the central excise invoice. A show cause notice was issued for duty demand amounting to Rs. 12,48,509. The appellant argued that lids were packed separately and the delivery challan indicated the total number of packages correctly. The Tribunal noted that the number of lids and containers cleared matched, and the price on the invoice aligned with the purchase order. The demand of Rs. 12,48,509 was set aside based on the evidence presented.Issue 2:The appellant was also found clearing containers without paying central excise duty, claiming them as replacements for defective goods. Duty demand of Rs. 1,10,854.62 was upheld as the appellant did not contest this demand.Issue 3:Duty was demanded on metal scrap not accounted for during the manufacturing process, amounting to Rs. 10,530. This demand was upheld as the appellant did not contest it due to lack of records.Issue 4:Unaccounted lids/bottoms were found in the factory premises, leading to confiscation. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation and imposition of a fine, reducing the redemption fine from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 25,000 due to excessive penalty.Issue 5:Penalty was imposed under Section 11AC, interest under Section 11AB, and confiscation of unaccounted goods was ordered. The penalty under Section 11AC was reduced to Rs. 1,21,384 from the original amount due to the setting aside of the demand related to lids/bottoms. The liability to interest on this demand was upheld at the applicable rate.In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the demand related to lids/bottoms not mentioned in the central excise invoice, upheld other duty demands not contested by the appellant, confirmed the duty demand on unaccounted metal scrap, and upheld the confiscation of unaccounted goods with a reduced redemption fine. The penalty under Section 11AC was reduced, and interest liability was upheld.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
