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 Upholds Confiscation Order in Central Excise Duty Evasion Case</h1> <h3>M/s. Lita Industries Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Vapi</h3> M/s. Lita Industries Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Vapi - TMI Issues:Appeals against Order-in-Appeal on Central Excise duty evasion, confiscation of goods, redemption fine, and penalty.Analysis:The case involved three appellants - a manufacturing unit, a job work unit, and a godown premises, all part of the same partnership firm. The central issue was the evasion of Central Excise duty by the first appellant, who removed goods without paying duty or issuing invoices. The department seized goods from the premises of the second and third appellants. The adjudicating authority ordered confiscation and imposed fines and penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order but reduced the fines and penalties. The main contention in the appeals was the propriety of the redemption fine and penalty imposed.Upon careful consideration, it was established that the first appellant removed goods without paying duty or reversing credit, violating Cenvat Credit Rules. The amount payable under these rules is considered excise duty, making the goods liable for confiscation. The liability for confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty was thus confirmed. Case laws cited by the appellants were distinguished as having different factual scenarios. The Tribunal found precedents where confiscation and penalties were upheld in similar cases, supporting the decision in this matter.The Tribunal upheld the Order-in-Appeal, confirming the confiscation of goods, redemption fines, and penalties. However, considering the circumstances, the redemption fine on the third appellant was further reduced, along with the penalty on the first appellant. The redemption fine on the third appellant was reduced to Rs. 5,00,000, and the penalty on the first appellant was also reduced to the same amount. The impugned order was upheld with these modifications, and the appeals were disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 