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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether exempt waste generated in the manufacture process and used captively required entry in RG 1 before further use, and whether non-entry justified the fine and penalty imposed.
Analysis: The material in question was waste generated in the course of manufacture, and both sides accepted that it was wholly exempt from duty under Notification No. 217/86. The record also showed that a substantial portion of the material was still in the polymerisation area, and the department did not establish that it had already reached the RG 1 stage, though some quantity was in the store room. While RG entries were required before further use once the material was to be taken for recovery, the breach was in respect of an exempt item and was not of a serious character. In such circumstances, the lapse was treated as a technical or venial breach.
Conclusion: The requirement of RG 1 entry before captive use was recognised, but the lapse did not justify the original fine and penalty; the fine was reduced substantially and the penalty was set aside.
Final Conclusion: The order was modified in favour of the assessee by granting substantial relief against the monetary consequences of the alleged procedural lapse.
Ratio Decidendi: A procedural omission relating to RG 1 entry of wholly exempt, captively consumed waste does not warrant full penal consequences where the breach is merely technical or venial.