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>Supreme Court remands case on Notification No.164/87-CE, Rule 209A penalty for fresh consideration</h1> <h3>Universal Radiators Ltd., Southern Press Tools Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore</h3> Universal Radiators Ltd., Southern Press Tools Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore - 2017 (347) E.L.T. 516 (Tri. - Chennai) Issues:1. Applicability of Notification No.164/87-CE dt. 10.6.1987 for exemption.2. Penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.3. Manufacturer status of M/s.Southern Press Tolls (SPT).4. Rejection of additional evidence by Tribunal.Analysis:Issue 1 - Applicability of Notification No.164/87-CE:The matter involved a challenge regarding the applicability of Notification No.164/87-CE for goods cleared to M/s.Universal Radiators Ltd. without following the Chapter X Procedure of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the case for fresh consideration.Issue 2 - Penalty under Rule 209A:The second issue was whether a penalty was leviable on M/s.Universal Radiators Ltd. under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tribunal had imposed penalties on both M/s.Southern Press Tolls and M/s.Universal Radiators Ltd. The matter was remanded for reconsideration by the Tribunal.Issue 3 - Manufacturer status of M/s.Southern Press Tolls (SPT):The High Court considered whether M/s.Southern Press Tolls could be considered a manufacturer in the absence of machinery on the premises. The court also examined the rejection of additional evidence related to the absence of machinery. The matter was remanded to the Tribunal in light of the Supreme Court's order.Issue 4 - Rejection of additional evidence by Tribunal:The Tribunal had rejected applications by the appellant to introduce additional evidence regarding the absence of machinery at M/s.Southern Press Tolls. The High Court remanded the case to the Tribunal following the Supreme Court's order for reconsideration.In the final analysis, the Tribunal found that without evidence of manufacturing infrastructure or activity by M/s.Southern Press Tolls, the manufacture of excisable goods by the company was inconceivable. Consequently, the adjudication related to M/s.Southern Press Tolls was set aside, leading to the success of the principal appeal and the allowance of the secondary appeal by M/s.Universal Radiators Ltd. Both appeals were allowed by the Tribunal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
