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>Commissioner imposes duty demand, penalty, interest for wrongful modvat credit claim under Central Excise Rules</h1> <h3>BOC INDIA LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI-II</h3> BOC INDIA LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI-II - 2001 (135) E.L.T. 1100 (Tri. - Kolkata) Issues:Confirmation of duty demand, personal penalty, interest under Central Excise Rules, 1944; Application of longer period of limitation; Imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q.Confirmation of Duty Demand, Personal Penalty, and Interest:The Commissioner confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 2,02,438 along with a personal penalty and interest under Rule 57-I(4) and Rule 57-I(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellant purchased liquid Oxygen, claimed modvat credit, and cleared it for medicinal purposes. The Revenue contended that no manufacturing activity was undertaken to convert the Oxygen, requiring the credit to be debited back. The Commissioner upheld the demand and penalty. The appellant conceded that testing didn't constitute manufacturing but argued the demand was time-barred. The appellant cited cases to support that no suppression occurred. The appellant also challenged the imposition of penalty and interest under retrospective rules.Application of Longer Period of Limitation:The appellant argued that the demand was time-barred as the show cause notice was issued after six months from the relevant date. They maintained that no suppression occurred as they informed the department about taking credit on inputs. The appellant referenced legal decisions to support their position. The Revenue countered, stating that testing alone didn't constitute manufacturing and highlighted discrepancies in the appellant's claims. They argued that the longer period was justified due to the appellant's misrepresentation.Imposition of Penalty under Rule 173Q:The Revenue contended that although penalty under Rule 57-I(4) wasn't applicable, it could be imposed under Rule 173Q. The Tribunal found that the appellant's actions justified the longer period of limitation. While reducing the penalty amount, the Tribunal upheld the duty demand but set aside the confirmation of interest. The Tribunal rejected the appeal except for the penalty modification.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment addresses the issues of duty demand confirmation, application of longer period of limitation, and imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q, providing a detailed overview of the arguments presented by both parties and the Tribunal's decision on each issue.
TaxTMI 