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 sets aside demand under Central Excise rules, highlighting compliance and duty distinctions.</h1> <h3>Philips Electronics India Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Pune - I</h3> Philips Electronics India Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Pune - I - TMI Issues:Challenge to demand under section 11A of Central Excise, imposition of penalty under section 11AC, breach of condition of notification no. 22/2003-CE, interpretation of duty-free procurement for Export Oriented Units, compliance with CENVAT Credit Rules.Analysis:The appeal in this case challenges a demand of &8377; 14,81,940 under section 11A of Central Excise, along with interest and penalty under section 11AC, upheld by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The appellant, a manufacturer of 'wireless sets/radios' and 'colour television sets', procured inputs like transistors, integrated circuits, cathode picture tubes, etc., and availed CENVAT credit on the duty paid. The appellant also operates an Export Oriented Unit (EOU) under the Foreign Trade Policy, allowing duty-free import or procurement of goods subject to conditions.The issue revolves around the alleged removal of inputs by the appellant to the EOU, breaching the condition of notification no. 22/2003-CE. The appellant transferred duty-paid goods to the EOU, availing CENVAT credit as required by the CENVAT Credit Rules. The Tribunal observed that the goods procured by the appellant had borne the incidence of duty, making them duty-paid goods not subject to the conditions of the exemption notification for duty-free procurement by EOUs.The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant's compliance with the CENVAT Credit Rules by paying duty on procured inputs before transfer to the EOU was sufficient. The transfer of duty-paid goods to a sister-undertaking was deemed outside the purview of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal concluded that the demand confirmed in the impugned order lacked legal authority and was set aside, allowing the appeal.In the analysis, the Tribunal highlighted the significance of distinguishing between duty-paid goods and duty-free procurement for EOUs, emphasizing the compliance with CENVAT Credit Rules as crucial in determining the legality of the transactions. The judgment clarifies the conditions for duty-free procurement and the implications of availing CENVAT credit on duty-paid goods in the context of Central Excise regulations.
TaxTMI 