TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 7
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4/- on 4963 pcs. of branded garments as reported in the monthly returns for June, 2012, but were found missing/unreported in the subsequent month of July, 2012. 2. The aforesaid omisssions and non-payment of appropriate duty were pointed out during audit verification under EA2000 for the period 2011-12 to 2012-13 and during scrutiny of ER-1 returns for the financial year 2012-13. The Revenue was of the view that the appellant had cleared the goods without payment of Central Excise duty aggregating Rs.1,54,472/- (comprising of basic Central Excise duty amounting Rs.1,49,973/- Education Cess of Rs.2,999/- & S & HE Cess of Rs.1,500/-). 3. In so far as 1456 pcs. of other branded garments are concerned, the appellants submitted that these ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2011 to November, 2011. A perusal of this statement, reveals it to be made very haphazardly and in a hurry as there is no proper sequencing or the listing of the invoices when details of original sale are considered. This observation is to point out that there is no normative structure in the statement of goods sold, returned or for resale thereof during the period 2011-12 and 2012-13. It is further noticed that the copies of the invoices handed over during the course of hearing, carry a faint impression of the rubber stamp of the appellants, indicating their registration number and other jurisdictional details, however, the copy thereof submitted alongwith the appeal paper book do not carry any such impression on any of the invoice copy en....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... SSF/12-13/003 20.04.12 480 649 2. SSF/12-13/004 20.04.12 336 649 3. SSF/12-13/002 20.04.12 640 649 144 9998.99 5.1 The fact that no intimation as envisaged in the Notification No.31/2011-CE dated 24th March, 2011 has been furnished to the Department, coupled with the fact of anomalous sets of invoices, one bearing the rubber stamp indicating geographical and other details and the other set with no such rubber stamp (as was pointed out by the Learned A.R.) leaves much for consideration about the genuineness and acceptance of the said documents, submitted towards substantial compliance of their case. 5.2 It is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e view that the ratio, of law as propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court is strictly applicable to the present matter. The Hon'ble High Court in the said matter had even gone to the extent of rejecting details maintained by the assessee in formats and elsewhere than as prescribed. It is thus felt that the appellant was legally obliged to tender the requisite intimation in order to claim the exemption. Further, this failure is not once but with each time the goods were returned and under consideration in the present appeal. The benefit of exemption Notification No.31/2011-CE dated 24.03.2011 therefore, in respect of 1456 pcs is not admissible to the appellants. The benefit of duty paid nature of goods and the consideration of the said stock of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent of a breach of the provisions. Also the period involved in the present case is more than 9 years down the line of the said changes set out. I am afraid under the circumstances a case of leniency is not made out. 7. I find that while certified copies of ER-I for the months of April 2012, May 2012 & June 2012 have been appended as a part of the appeal paper book - copies/transcripts of ER-I filed online for subsequent months are not on record. Instead the appellants have appended their private records and statement culled out for the period 1.4.12 to 31.3.13 in respect of the said goods which gives the date-wise periodical opening & closing balance of the product in addition to certain other details as may have been m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... In both the aforesaid cases the Tribunal was concerned with either the admissibility or eligibility to CENVAT Credit of certain services or the utilization of credit thereto. However, in the present matter, we are concerned with issues where either a statutorily prescribed intimation was not furnished to the department to avail of an exemption benefit, or even the veracity of the invoices relied upon is questionable, or the fact that no details of specified goods were included in the monthly return. Under the circumstances to seek shelter under the plea of demand working, being an extension of documents tendered during audit is not only preposterous and abominable but also completely unethical, uncalled for & unwarranted. The same being w....