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>Disputes on Excise Duty & Penalty Remanded for Reconsideration by Supreme Court</h1> <h3>CEAT LIMITED Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-III</h3> The case involved disputes over the applicability of Additional Excise Duty (AED) on dipped tyre cord fabric, duty liability, penalty imposition, and ... Basic excise duty (GSI) payable on dipped tyre cord fabric (an intermediate product) used in the mfg. of animal drawn vehicle tyres – reversal of credit on inputs used is more than basic duty demanded on intermediate product – held that if credit reversed is more, then appellant is not liable to pay further duty – case remanded to Commissioner to give finding regarding reversal of credit - Since appellants were under bona fide belief that goods mfd. were not dutiable, penalty is not sustainable Issues:1. Applicability of Additional Excise Duty (Goods of Special Importance) on dipped tyre cord fabric.2. Dispute regarding duty liability and classification of dipped tyre cord fabric.3. Imposition of penalty and demand of interest.4. Basic excise duty on dipped tyre cord fabric used in the manufacture of animal drawn vehicle tyres.Analysis:Issue 1: Applicability of Additional Excise Duty (Goods of Special Importance) on dipped tyre cord fabricThe case revolved around the exemption of Additional Excise Duty (AED) on dipped tyre cord fabric under Notification No. 28/94-C.E. The Notification was rescinded, making the fabric liable to AED(GSI) @ 5% ad valorem. The appellant cleared the fabric without payment, leading to show cause notices for duty payment. The Commissioner confirmed duty payment, which was contested by the appellant.Issue 2: Dispute regarding duty liability and classification of dipped tyre cord fabricThe appellant disputed the duty liability on the grounds that the manufacturing process did not amount to manufacture and the fabric was not a marketable commodity. The matter was adjudicated by CESTAT, which held that AED(GSI) was not payable for dipped tyre cord fabric. The Supreme Court remanded the issue back to the Commissioner for reconsideration.Issue 3: Imposition of penalty and demand of interestThe appellant accepted the duty liability but contested the penalty and interest imposition. They argued that since the duty was paid within three months, no interest should be charged. They also cited the Supreme Court's decision in Grasim Industries Ltd., emphasizing the absence of mala fide intent in their actions.Issue 4: Basic excise duty on dipped tyre cord fabric used in the manufacture of animal drawn vehicle tyresThe Commissioner demanded basic excise duty on the fabric used in vehicle tyre manufacture. The appellant claimed entitlement to credit of duty on inputs used in fabric manufacture, which was reversed. The Commissioner's order did not address this aspect, leading to a remand for specific findings.In conclusion, the penalty was set aside based on the appellant's bona fide belief, interest was not charged due to timely duty payment, and the matter of basic excise duty on fabric used in vehicle tyre production was remanded for further examination.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
