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 adjusts penalties in duty evasion case, maintains liability.</h1> <h3>Shri Charles Henry D’Silva Proprietor M/s. Aurrick Tools, Smt Helen Charles D’Silva Proprietor of M/s. Austin Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai</h3> Shri Charles Henry D’Silva Proprietor M/s. Aurrick Tools, Smt Helen Charles D’Silva Proprietor of M/s. Austin Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai ... Issues:1. Alleged creation of a dummy unit to evade Central Excise duty.2. Applicability of notifications and procedures for job work.3. Time limitation for demanding duty.4. Imposition of penalties on the appellants.Analysis:1. The case involved the alleged creation of a dummy unit, M/s. Austin, by the appellants to evade Central Excise duty. The department contended that goods were removed under the guise of job work, leading to a show-cause notice seeking duty recovery. The Additional Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand and penalties based on the establishment of M/s. Austin as a sham unit.2. The appellants argued that M/s. Austin was an independent firm established in 2002, not opting for certain notifications but sending goods to them for job work. They claimed eligibility under Notification No.83/94-CE for job work and disputed duty liability. The lack of records by M/s. Austin was attributed to a procedural lapse, asserting their duty exemption for job work done.3. The Revenue supported the findings of the Original Order-In-Original (OIO) and Order-In-Appeal (OIA), emphasizing the creation of M/s. Austin as a sham unit. Statements of the appellants and M/s. Austin's proprietors were cited as evidence, indicating no retraction of their involvement in the alleged evasion scheme.4. Upon review, the tribunal upheld the duty confirmation but restricted the duty liability to a specific period, considering part of the show-cause notice as time-barred. The penalties imposed were adjusted, reducing the penalty on Smt. Helen Charles D'Silva due to her lesser involvement compared to Shri Charles D'Silva in establishing the dummy unit.In conclusion, the tribunal affirmed the duty confirmation but modified the penalties, reducing the total penalty amount imposed on M/s. Aurrick Tools and Smt. Helen Charles D'Silva. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, maintaining duty liability and adjusting penalties based on the level of involvement in the alleged duty evasion scheme.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
