2018 (7) TMI 1205

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e of Shoe Heels falling under C. Heading No.6406 of Central Excise Tariff; during audit by Central Excise Officers on 26/27.09.2013, it was observed that appellants received advance payment for developing the moulds which are used for manufacture of heels; the said amount of advance received was shown separately under the head other income and no excise duty was being paid on the same; auditors observed that the appellants were liable for payment of duty at the rate at which duty was payable on manufacture and sale of goods. The appellants, in reply, contended that they were under the belief that charges for developing the moulds are in the nature of service and in view of taxation on the basis of negative list, appellant already started pa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... basis for recovery of Central Excise duty; Central Excise revenue account is independent of Service Tax revenue account and therefore, the question of adjustment already paid towards Central Excise duty does not arise. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellants argued that in the present case there is no dispute on liability for payment of Central Excise duty; that on being pointed out they immediately agreed for payment of the same; that they were under the bonafide belief that the amount received towards mould developing charges are in the nature of service and were liable for payment of Service Tax; that even before the audit pointed out, they had already started paying service tax. He further submitted that his only claim is that the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tment as the assessee-appellants were having the registration for the Service Tax and the payment was made for this period. No double jeopardy can be applied in this case. Hence, assessee-appellants cannot be punished twice as they have already paid the Service Tax during the relevant period. When the assessee-appellants have filed the excise declaration on 30-3-2010 from the very day his activity is subject to excise duty being "manufacture". During the period under consideration, no duty is leviable as the Department never raised any objection which is an implied consent for having the Service Tax from the assessee-appellants. Now refund of Service Tax is time-barred. Let it be as was at the relevant period specially when no fraud, collus....