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>Excise duty demands partially rejected due to insufficient evidence, SSI exemption dispute resolved favorably</h1> <h3>M/s Sherishid Interiors Pvt. Ltd., Shri Sanjeev Lamba, M/s Continental Furnishers Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida</h3> M/s Sherishid Interiors Pvt. Ltd., Shri Sanjeev Lamba, M/s Continental Furnishers Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the confirmation of demand of Central Excise duty is justified.2. Whether the imposition of penalties on all the appellants is justified.3. Whether the appropriation of duty already deposited is justified.Issue 1: Confirmation of Demand of Central Excise DutyThe demand of Rs. 1,06,687.52/- for goods cleared as per Invoice No. 16 & 18 dated 20.04.2001 was based on the assumption that 44 pieces were cleared, whereas the appellant claimed that only 14 pieces were cleared as reflected in the invoices. The tribunal found no merit in the demand due to lack of evidence from the revenue authorities.The demand of Rs. 90,720/- for goods alleged to be cleared to Sita Resorts was based on proforma invoices and a statement by the excise in-charge. The tribunal noted the absence of tangible evidence and the failure to allow cross-examination of the excise in-charge, leading to the dropping of this demand.The demand of Rs. 70,320/- for goods lying within the factory was upheld. The tribunal confirmed that the goods were removed for personal consumption within the appellant's premises, which constitutes removal under Central Excise Law.The demand of Rs. 5,59,158.48/- for goods cleared by wrongly availing SSI exemption was dropped. The tribunal noted that the appellant had duly declared all facts in their RT-12 returns, and thus, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked.Issue 2: Imposition of PenaltiesThe penalty of Rs. 8,26,886/- imposed on Appellant 1 under section 11AC was reduced to Rs. 70,320/-, corresponding to the upheld demand.Penalties of Rs. 1,00,000/- each on Appellant 2 and Appellant 3 under Rule 209A were dropped. The tribunal found no active role played by these appellants in the evasion or short payment of duty.Issue 3: Appropriation of Duty Already DepositedThe appropriation of Rs. 59,360/- already deposited was upheld. The tribunal confirmed that the duty deposited by the appellant was liable to be adjusted against the confirmed demand.Summary of Findings:- Goods cleared as per Invoice No 16 & 18: Rs. 1,06,687.52/- demand dropped.- Goods alleged to be cleared to Sita Resorts: Rs. 90,720/- demand dropped.- Goods lying within the factory: Rs. 70,320/- demand upheld.- Wrong availment of SSI exemption: Rs. 5,59,158.48/- demand dropped.- Interest: Upheld.- Penalty under Section 11AC on Appellant 1: Reduced to Rs. 70,320/-.- Penalty on Appellant 2: Rs. 1,00,000/- dropped.- Penalty on Appellant 3: Rs. 1,00,000/- dropped.Conclusion:- Appeal of Appellant 1: Partly allowed.- Appeals of Appellant 2 and Appellant 3: Allowed.Pronounced in open court on 12 March, 2024.
TaxTMI 