https://www.taxtmi.com/css/info/rss_sitemap/rss_feed.css?v=1746094055 https://www.taxtmi.com Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax Services Tax Management India. Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53632 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53632 Penalty u/s 11AC and Rule 173Q - Demand of duty - Clandestine removal of excisable goods - waste and scrap - Evidence - Limitation period for demands - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted fact in this case that the entire amount of duty demanded was paid prior to the issuance of show-cause notice. It has been held in the Apex Court of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd.[ 2003 (5) TMI 509 - SC ORDER] that, where duty was paid prior to the issuance of show-cause notice, no penalty was liable to be imposed on the assessee u/s 11AC or under Rule 173Q. Therefore, the penalties imposed in this case under the said provisions of law are liable to be vacate. Demand of duty on waste and scrap - We have considered the Tribunal s decision in International Computer Ribbon Corporation v. CCE, Chennai (supra). In that case, as in the instant case, computer print-outs were relied on by the adjudicating authority for recording a finding of clandestine manufacture and clearance of excisable goods. It was found by the Tribunal that the print-outs were neither authenticated nor recovered under Mahazar. It was also found that the assessee in that case had disowned the print-outs and was not even confronted with what was contained therein. The Tribunal rejected the print-outs and the Revenue s finding of clandestine manufacture and clearance. We find a strong parallel between the instant case and the cited case. Nothing contained in the print-outs generated by Sampath Kumar s PC can be admitted into evidence for non-fulfilment of the statutory conditions. It is also noteworthy that the computer print-outs pertained to the period February, 1996 to September, 1998 only but the information contained therein was used for a finding of clandestine removal of waste and scrap for earlier period also, which, in any case, was not permissible in law. In the result, we hold that the entire demand of duty on waste and scrap is liable to be set aside. Demand of duty on original equipments - There is no rebuttal to the assessee s case that the finding that 90% of the OE clearances were replacements is not supported by anything contained in the registers maintained in the Service Station. We do not find sufficient evidence to support the Commissioner s finding that 90%, OE clearances were replacements attracting levy. Limitation - The facts and circumstances of the case would show that they had no intent to evade payment of duty on the components cleared from Unit 1 to Unit 2 inasmuch as any duty paid on the goods cleared from Unit No. 1 would have been available to Unit No. 2 as Modvat credit. The appellants plea of revenue neutrality raised in this appeal seems to be strong enough to resist the demand of duty on components for the extended period of limitation. Hence the plea of limitation in this case has to be accepted. Thus, we set aside the impugned order and allow this appeal with consequential relief, if any, to the appellants. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530