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>Supreme Court upholds duty demand and penalty for non-compliance with Notification 11/88, stresses exemption conditions.</h1> <h3>EAGLE FLASK INDUSTRIES LIMITED Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., PUNE</h3> EAGLE FLASK INDUSTRIES LIMITED Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., PUNE - 2004 (171) E.L.T. 296 (SC), 2004 (4) Suppl. SCR 35, 2004 (7) SCC 377, 2004 (7) JT ... Issues:Challenge to order passed by Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) - Duty demand and penalty imposition.Analysis:The appellants contested a duty demand of Rs. 14,95,893/- and a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- imposed by the Adjudicating Authority and upheld by the Collector, Central Excise and Customs (Appeals). The appellants claimed exemption from Central Excise Licensing Control under Rule 174A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for goods manufactured at their main factory during the disputed period. However, the Central Excise authorities issued a show cause notice alleging failure to obtain the required L-4 license and non-compliance with excise regulations. The Adjudicating Officer and Collector (Appeals) found the appellants liable for duty and penalty. The CEGAT dismissed the appeal, upholding the departmental orders.The appellants argued before the CEGAT that exemption notification 53/88 dated 1-3-1988 exempted the casseroles manufactured by them. They contended that the failure to file a declaration under Notification 11/88 was a procedural lapse and should not lead to substantial tax liability. However, the CEGAT affirmed the departmental orders, stating that the appellants failed to comply with the declaration requirement under Notification 11/88, thereby confirming the duty demand and penalty imposition.The Supreme Court analyzed Notification 11/88, which provides exemption from Rule 174 for goods chargeable to nil duty or fully exempted. The Notification mandates a declaration and undertaking for claiming exemption, which the appellants failed to submit. The Court emphasized that strict compliance with conditions is necessary to avail benefits under an exemption Notification. Since the appellants did not fulfill the declaration requirement, they were not entitled to the exemption from Rule 174. Consequently, the Court upheld the CEGAT's decision, dismissing the appeal.In conclusion, the Supreme Court affirmed the CEGAT's decision, emphasizing the importance of complying with exemption Notification requirements for availing benefits. The failure to submit the necessary declaration under Notification 11/88 led to the denial of exemption from Rule 174, resulting in the confirmation of duty demand and penalty imposition against the appellants.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
