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 duty demand, allows recalculation based on cum duty value. Verification of Cenvat credit eligibility ordered.</h1> <h3>M/s Ramesh Industries Versus CCE, Indore</h3> M/s Ramesh Industries Versus CCE, Indore - TMI Issues:1. Applicability of Notification 8/2003-CE for duty exemption.2. Eligibility to switch over to small scale exemption.3. Imposition of Central Excise duty demand, interest, and penalty.4. Calculation of duty demand considering gross receipt as cum duty value.5. Verification of eligibility for Cenvat credit on inputs used in final products.Analysis:1. The case involved a dispute regarding the applicability of Notification 8/2003-CE for duty exemption. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing plastic products, had availed Cenvat credit on inputs under Notification 9/2003-CE. The notification was rescinded w.e.f. 01/04/2005, providing the appellants with the option to either avail exemption under Notification 8/2003-CE or pay duty at the tariff rate with credit on inputs. The appellants cleared goods for home consumption during 2004-2005 under Notification 9/2003-CE. However, they started availing exemption under Notification 8/2003-CE from 01/09/2005 to 31/03/2006, leading to a dispute with the Revenue regarding eligibility for such exemption.2. The issue of whether the appellants were eligible to switch over to the small scale exemption under Notification 8/2003-CE in the middle of the financial year was contested. The Original Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellants, by paying duty at the normal rate from 01/04/2005 to 31/08/2005, had not opted for the small scale exemption. The Revenue argued that the appellants could not switch to the SSI exemption mid-year as per the provisions of the notification, which required a manufacturer to maintain the chosen option for the entire financial year.3. The Revenue initiated action against the appellants to demand Central Excise duty for the period 01/09/2005 to 31/03/2006, contending that the appellants were not eligible for exemption under Notification 8/2003-CE. The Original Authority confirmed a duty demand of &8377; 9,77,649/-, along with interest and a penalty equivalent to the duty amount. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original order, leading to the appellants challenging the decision, claiming they had correctly availed the exemption and contesting the penalty imposed.4. The appellants pleaded for a recalculation of duty demand by considering the gross receipt as cum duty value. The Tribunal held that such recalculation could be done if evidence was provided by the appellants showing that the value included Central Excise duty. Verification of duty paying documents and related accounts was required for this purpose, and any reduction in duty demand would lead to a corresponding reduction in the penalty amount.5. The eligibility of the appellants for Cenvat credit on various inputs used in the manufacture of final products was also a subject of contention. The Tribunal directed the Jurisdictional Authority to verify the claimed Cenvat credit on inputs based on satisfactory examination of duty paying documents and related accounts. Subject to verification, the Cenvat credit on inputs would be deemed eligible for the appellants.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the duty demand but allowing for a recalculation based on cum duty value and verification of Cenvat credit eligibility on inputs.
TaxTMI 