TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether central excise duty could be demanded on the difference between the value declared in ER-1 returns and the amounts reflected in Form 26AS receipts from the buyer, and whether the burden of proof lay on the assessee to reconcile those receipts; (ii) Whether the demand of central excise duty on sale of capital goods, which were not manufactured by the assessee, was sustainable.
Issue (i): Whether central excise duty could be demanded on the difference between the value declared in ER-1 returns and the amounts reflected in Form 26AS receipts from the buyer, and whether the burden of proof lay on the assessee to reconcile those receipts.
Analysis: Central excise is a levy on excisable goods manufactured or produced in India, and the charging provision does not authorise duty on mere amounts received. Duty becomes payable on removal of goods, and the timing or quantum of receipt from the buyer does not determine excisability. Form 26AS is only a compilation of payments and tax deductions and cannot, by itself, establish suppression of excisable value. In the absence of a contrary provision, the burden in show cause notice proceedings remained on the Revenue under the rule on burden of proof, and the Revenue had to establish that the disputed receipts represented consideration for excisable goods cleared without payment of duty.
Conclusion: The demand based on the difference between ER-1 values and Form 26AS receipts was not sustainable and was decided in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the demand of central excise duty on sale of capital goods, which were not manufactured by the assessee, was sustainable.
Analysis: The demand was framed as central excise duty on the value of commercial invoices, even though the goods were capital goods sold as such and not goods manufactured or produced by the assessee. A duty demand of this nature could not be sustained under the charging provision for excise, and the alternative basis suggested under the CENVAT credit rule did not match the actual demand raised in the notice.
Conclusion: The demand on sale of capital goods was not sustainable and was decided in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The impugned demand and penalty could not be sustained in law because excise duty was sought to be levied on receipts and on goods not manufactured by the assessee, leading to complete relief to the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Central excise duty can be levied only on excisable goods manufactured or produced, and in proceedings under a show cause notice the Revenue must establish that the disputed receipt corresponds to dutiable clearances; duty cannot be imposed merely because an amount was received or because goods were sold as such without manufacture by the assessee.
TaxTMI 
