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 Upholds Decision on Clearances, Modifies Duty Liability Order</h1> <h3>PERFECT CARTONS, COCHIN Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, COCHIN</h3> PERFECT CARTONS, COCHIN Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, COCHIN - 1987 (29) E.L.T. 254 (Tribunal) Issues:1. Whether the Appellant and M/s. Perfect Agencies are considered as two separate entities.2. If not, whether the value of clearances by both entities should be combined for determining eligibility to certain benefits.3. Whether the Appellant contravened provisions in Rules 9(2) and 173(Q).4. Whether the penalties imposed under Rule 173-Q and Rule 9(2) are justified and maintainable.Analysis:Issue 1: Appellant vs. M/s. Perfect AgenciesThe case involved allegations of unity of ownership between the Appellant and M/s. Perfect Agencies. The Appellant admitted to manufacturing and clearing cartons exceeding exempted limits but claimed that the excess was attributable to M/s. Perfect Agencies, a separate partnership concern leasing their premises. The contention was that goods manufactured by M/s. Perfect Agencies should be assessed separately, placing the Appellant within exemption limits.Issue 2: Clubbing of ClearancesNotifications No. 80/80 and 83/83 set ceiling limits for clearances from a factory by different manufacturers. The tribunal found that even if the entities were separate, their clearances needed to be combined to determine the factory's ceiling limit. As the combined clearances exceeded the limit, the Appellant was deemed ineligible for exemption benefits.Issue 3: Contravention of RulesThe Appellant was found liable to pay duty for exceeding clearance limits and contravening Rules 9(1) and 173-Q. The tribunal noted that the Appellant accepted the position and sought leniency only in penalty matters.Issue 4: Penalties ImposedPenalties under Rule 173-Q and Rule 9(2) were levied on the Appellant. The tribunal modified the order, directing the duty liability to be apportioned between the two manufacturers, the Appellant and M/s. Perfect Agencies. The matter was remanded for allocation of duty liability based on respective clearances of both entities.In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the appeal while modifying the order to allocate duty liability between the Appellant and M/s. Perfect Agencies. The decision highlighted the importance of combining clearances from different manufacturers for determining exemption eligibility and emphasized the duty liability on manufacturers as per Rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules.
TaxTMI 