2018 (3) TMI 599

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tence. It is contended by the Learned Consultant on behalf of the appellant that the dispute on the liability to excise duty on such activity is currently pending before the Tribunal in their own case for an earlier period and that during the pendency of the dispute they had been compelled to take registration on 19th May 2015 following which their premises were searched on 26th May 2015 and stock 835.6 MTs of raw material found in excess led to proceedings being initiated against the appellant. 2. The background of the dispute is that fertiliser was exempt from duties of central excise duty with effect from 1st March 2011 on all goods falling under chapter 31 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 other than those which ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lso set aside. 3. The primary contention of Learned Consultant for appellant is that the products are not liable to excise duty, that the taxability is in dispute before the Tribunal and that that it was the incorrect interpretation of the order under section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 that led to forced registration of the unit under Central Excise Act, 1944. Notwithstanding the scope of the dispute between the appellant and the Revenue, Learned Counsel for appellant submits that the redemption fine that has been imposed in lieu of confiscation is much too high considering the goods that were found to be in excess had already borne the burden of duty at the time of provisional release. It is his further contention that the alle....