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>Challenge to Duty Demand Upheld for Manufacturing Coir Mattresses</h1> <h3>M/s Arvind Industries Versus Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise Central GST Building, Tikrapara- Raipur</h3> The appeal challenged the Order-in-Appeal upholding a duty demand of Rs. 13,08,611/- with penalties under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant, ... Captive Consumption - intermediary goods - manufacture of coir mattresses and intermediate products, namely, PU Foam and PU Foam SST - PU Foam by the appellant without payment of duty - N/N. 67/1995-CE dated 16th March, 1995 - separate account in the name and style as “captive use” has been maintained by the appellant in their ER-returns - demand of duty alongwith penalty - HELD THAT:- Keeping in view that the ER returns and the figures mentioned therein have to be meticulously examined specifically the figures of the column of “captive use” are concerned to recalculate the ratio of material consumed and final product cleared. Apparently, these figures included the captive use of PU Foam & PU SST. The original adjudicating authority is, therefore, required to look into the documents on record, to consider the re-conciliation chart, if any, filed by the appellants so as to calculate the quantity of PU Form/ PU Foam SST as have been captively used and that amount thereof in the final product cleared, and to decide the case afresh independent of the decisions already on record. The present appeal hereby is allowed by way of remand. Issues:- Confirmation of duty demanding with penalty under Central Excise Act, 1944- Allegation of clearance of PU Foam without payment of duty- Maintenance of separate account for captive use- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 69/CE-2019- Request for reexamination of calculation by Departmental adjudicating authority- Submission for remand back to original adjudicating authorityConfirmation of duty demanding with penalty under Central Excise Act, 1944:The appeal was filed to challenge the Order-in-Appeal upholding the duty demand of Rs. 13,08,611/- with penalties imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing coir mattresses and intermediate products, was observed to have cleared PU Foam without duty payment during 2012-13 to 2016-17. The department noted the maintenance of a separate account for 'captive use' in ER-returns and alleged clearance of PU Foam without showing production of final products, leading to the confirmation of duty demand and penalties.Allegation of clearance of PU Foam without payment of duty:The appellant was found to have cleared PU Foam without duty payment despite exemption for captive use of intermediate products. The department alleged that no final products were produced from the consumed PU Foam during the relevant period, resulting in the confirmed demand under challenge. The proposal was initially confirmed in the Order-in-Original, which was rejected in the impugned Order-in-Appeal.Maintenance of separate account for captive use:The appellant maintained a separate account for 'captive use' in ER-returns, indicating the utilization of intermediate products exempted from duty. However, the department found discrepancies, leading to the allegation of clearance of PU Foam without payment of duty due to the absence of final product production from the consumed PU Foam.Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 69/CE-2019:The present appeal was filed to challenge the Order-in-Appeal upholding the duty demand and penalties imposed under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant's counsel argued that the issue arose from bad accounting practices rather than intentional duty evasion, emphasizing the regular filing of returns with requisite documents acknowledged by the department.Request for reexamination of calculation by Departmental adjudicating authority:The appellant's counsel requested a reexamination of the calculation by the Departmental adjudicating authority, highlighting that the issue stemmed from accounting errors and misunderstanding of figures in the ER returns. The counsel proposed a reconciliation chart based on existing records to clarify the discrepancies and urged for a remand back to the original adjudicating authority.Submission for remand back to original adjudicating authority:Both parties expressed no objection to the matter being reconsidered by the original adjudicating authority, with a condition to rely only on existing documents on record. The Tribunal directed a meticulous examination of the ER returns, specifically the figures of 'captive use,' to recalculate the material consumed and final products cleared. The original adjudicating authority was instructed to consider any reconciliation chart provided by the appellant and decide the case afresh independently, allowing the appeal by way of remand.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
