TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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 remands appeals on duty liability & jurisdiction, orders reevaluation.</h1> The Tribunal remanded the appeals against Orders-in-Appeal by the Commissioner of Central Excise, directing a reevaluation of duty liability, exemption ... Job-work – SSI exemption - exemption limit – appellant is receiving raw materials i.e. lay-flat tubing and carrying out only the activity of printing - held that mere printing doesn’t amount to manufacture so charges collected for mere printing should not be included in the total turnover - benefit of exemption Notification No. 14/92 for the year 92-93, 93-94, & 94-95 – Matter remanded to comm..(A) for denovo proceedings as benefit hasn’t been allowed for the year 95-96 to 96-97 Issues:1. Central Excise duty liability on manufactured goods.2. Allegation of not including raw material cost in job work charges.3. Delay in disposal of appeals.4. Benefit of Central Excise Notification.5. Jurisdictional issues in issuing show cause notices.6. Calculation of duty liability and exemption limits.7. Treatment of printing charges in total turnover.Analysis:1. The appeals were against Orders-in-Appeal by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The appellants were manufacturers of excisable goods and were alleged to have not discharged Central Excise duty liability on their products. They were also accused of not including raw material costs in job work charges, leading to a demand of Rs. 1,64,643/- and Rs. 1,19,700/- for different periods, with a penalty imposed. The appellants contested the orders, highlighting delays in disposal and non-mention of pre-deposits.2. The appellants received raw materials for job work, primarily lay-flat Tubing of plastic, arguing that their activities did not amount to manufacturing but printing. They cited relevant case laws to support their position. Discrepancies in extending the benefit of a Notification were noted between the two Orders-in-Appeal, raising concerns about the calculation of duty liability and exemption limits for the appellant.3. Issues of jurisdiction arose regarding the issuance of show cause notices by a Range Superintendent instead of a Commissioner, impacting the validity of demands raised. The appellants maintained proper records and compliance, contesting the need for extended periods and alleging no suppression of facts.4. The Tribunal found shortcomings in the Orders-in-Appeal, directing a de novo examination by the Commissioner for one case due to jurisdictional concerns and for another to reevaluate the entitlement of deductions claimed by the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized that charges for mere printing should not be included in total turnover and instructed a thorough review of exemption benefits for specific years. The matter was remanded for expedited resolution within three months.This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the legal judgment, addressing the complexities of Central Excise duty liability, jurisdictional matters, and calculation discrepancies, leading to the remand of the cases for further examination and clarification by the Commissioner.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
