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>Appellants win appeal on Excise Duty mistake, no penalty imposed.</h1> <h3>PEPSICO INDIA HOLDING PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., ALLAHABAD</h3> PEPSICO INDIA HOLDING PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., ALLAHABAD - 2010 (255) E.L.T. 299 (Tri. - Del.) , 2010 (20) S.T.R. 552 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:Challenge to order for payment of Special Excise Duty, Penalty imposition, Compliance with payment procedures, Invocation of extended period of limitation, Bona fide mistake in payment code.Analysis:The appellants contested an order requiring them to pay Special Excise Duty, interest, and penalties. The audit revealed discrepancies in the payment of duties, specifically the utilization of credit for Special Excise Duty without proper balance. The show cause notice alleged short payment of Special Excise Duty, leading to the demand confirmation in the impugned order.The appellants argued against the order on two main grounds. Firstly, they questioned the justification for invoking the extended period of limitation. Secondly, they claimed that the duty amount was already deposited, albeit partially under the wrong code, due to a bona fide mistake by an employee. The department, however, defended the order, citing non-compliance with duty payment procedures.The Tribunal noted that while there were procedural lapses in specifying the correct code for duty payment, the total duty amount was transferred to the government account. The mistake did not indicate an intention to evade payment. The circular from the Board allowed the transfer of credit balances between minor heads, indicating no default in duty payment. The Tribunal concluded that the mistake was not deliberate evasion, and there was no basis for penalty imposition.Upon review, the Tribunal deemed the mistake in depositing under the wrong code as a bona fide error. They ruled that the appellants should not be required to repay the amount to the government but should rectify the accounting code for proper record-keeping. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
TaxTMI 