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>Remand by Tribunal for Central Excise Duty Re-Quantification: Errors Corrected, Fairness Emphasized</h1> The Tribunal's decision on remand for re-quantification of Central Excise duty demand and penalties highlighted errors in computation and discrepancies in ... SSI Exemption - goods were cleared in the name of fictitious firms - Held that:- The Tribunal in M/S SWAMI PACKAGERS PVT. LTD., SHRI DEO PRAKASH RUNGTA, DIRECTOR VERSUS CCEX, PATNA [2018 (11) TMI 284 - CESTAT KOLKATA], set aside the impugned final order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for re-quantification of the demand against M/s Swamy Packagers Pvt. Ltd. as well as Shri Deo Prakash Rungta, Director of the Appellant Company as also for redecision of the amount of penalty. The lower authorities is directed to decide the quantum of penalty, if any, against the present appellant also as part of the common proceeding - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues:- Central Excise duty demand on manufactured goods- Allegation of not paying Central Excise duty- Search operation and investigation- Order-in-Original dated 25.03.2008- Remand for denovo adjudication- Confirmation of Central Excise duty demand- Imposition of penalties- Challenge in the present round of litigation- Collusion allegation- Contravention of Rule 26 and Rule 209A- Evidence and rebuttal- Penalty imposition in denovo proceeding- Tribunal's decision on remand for re-quantification of demand and penaltyCentral Excise Duty Demand on Manufactured Goods:The case involves M/s Swamy Packagers Pvt. Ltd. manufacturing HDPE Containers and other Plastic Containers under Central Excise Tariff Heading 3923.90. The Department conducted investigations alleging non-payment of Central Excise duty on goods manufactured by the company. Investigations revealed clearances to major buyers under fictitious firm names, leading to a show-cause notice and subsequent adjudication resulting in a demand of duty, penalties, and confiscation.Allegation of Not Paying Central Excise Duty:Allegations included manufacturing goods without paying Central Excise duty, using fictitious firm names for clearances, and involvement of company directors. The initial Order-in-Original confirmed duty demand, penalties, and confiscation. A subsequent remand by the Tribunal highlighted procedural violations and lack of natural justice, leading to a denovo adjudication.Search Operation and Investigation:Search operations at factory and residential premises, along with major buyers, yielded incriminating documents and statements. The Department's investigations concluded on clandestine manufacturing and clearance of goods, prompting the issuance of a show-cause notice and subsequent adjudication.Order-in-Original and Remand for Denovo Adjudication:The Order-in-Original dated 25.03.2008 confirmed a substantial Central Excise duty demand, penalties, and confiscation. This order was a result of compliance with the Tribunal's remand order for denovo adjudication, emphasizing the need for procedural fairness and natural justice.Confirmation of Central Excise Duty Demand and Imposition of Penalties:The Order-in-Original confirmed a significant Central Excise duty demand, penalties, and confiscation against the company and its directors. The subsequent challenge in the present round of litigation raised arguments regarding collusion, contravention of rules, evidence, rebuttal, and penalty imposition.Tribunal's Decision on Remand for Re-Quantification of Demand and Penalty:A subsequent Tribunal decision on remand for re-quantification of demand and penalty highlighted errors in computation, denial of SSI exemption benefit, and discrepancies in demand calculation. The Tribunal directed re-quantification, clubbing clearances under fictitious firms, extending SSI exemption, and re-determining penalties proportionately.Conclusion:The case involved complex issues of Central Excise duty demand, procedural fairness, natural justice, contravention of rules, penalties, and remand for re-quantification. The decisions emphasized the importance of evidence, procedural compliance, and fair adjudication in tax matters.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
