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 rules in favor of appellants, penalty reduced, no retroactive application of Section 11AC.</h1> <h3>SREE KARTHIKEYA INDUSTRIES Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., CHENNAI</h3> SREE KARTHIKEYA INDUSTRIES Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., CHENNAI - 2008 (230) E.L.T. 281 (Tri. - Chennai) Issues:1. Whether the value of liners supplied by a third party to a job worker should be included in the aggregate value of clearances.2. Whether there was suppression of facts with intention to evade payment of duty.3. Justifiability of the penalty imposed.Analysis:Issue 1: Inclusion of Liners in Aggregate ValueThe appellants, engaged in manufacturing HDPE bags with liners supplied by a job worker, faced a demand as the liners' value was not included in the aggregate value of clearances. The appellants argued that they believed the cost of liners was not to be included in the assessable value. The Tribunal found that as there was no intention to evade duty and the liners were supplied directly by a third party to the job worker, the demand denying the SSI exemption was not sustainable. The appellants agreed to rectify the short-levy, and the penalty was reduced to Rs. 5,000.Issue 2: Suppression of FactsThe Commissioner had rejected the appellants' claim of not suppressing facts on the grounds that it was raised for the first time during the appeal. However, the Tribunal held that the plea regarding bona fide belief and suppression of facts was not controverted by the lower appellate authority. As suppression of facts was not established, the larger period could not have been invoked. The demand for the short-levy during the normal period was upheld, and the penalty was reduced to Rs. 5,000.Issue 3: Penalty ImpositionThe revenue sought to impose an equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC, but the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The clearances in question occurred before Section 11AC was enacted, and therefore, penalty under that section could not be imposed retroactively. The Tribunal allowed the party's appeal and dismissed the revenue's appeal seeking to impose a penalty under Section 11AC.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appellants' appeal on the terms of rectifying the short-levy and reducing the penalty, while dismissing the revenue's appeal seeking to impose a penalty under Section 11AC retroactively.
TaxTMI 