TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 182
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Central Excise Act, 1944 - the taxable event - before which even the fundamental aspects of assessment, viz., rate of duty and value, take a backseat. Indeed, unlike sibling statutes for levy of taxes, the jurisdictional line between 'manufacture' and 'excisable' is so very conceptual that the administration of this impost has constantly been plagued by the demon of controversy which should have been about the 'manufacturing process', which is taxable, but, most often, ends up being about the 'excisable product', which offers a measure of the levy, and the factual matrix of the dispute before us is not atypical in that the submissions of both sides rely primarily on judicial precedent combined with the 'dovetailing' of the two. 2. The app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....osition of penalty of Rs. 5000 under rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 while the other, for October 2011 to August 2012, culminated in confirmation of duty liability of Rs. 76,238 under section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944, along with applicable interest under section 11AA of Central Excise Act, 1944, besides imposition of penalty of Rs. 10,000 under rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 which was upheld in order [order-in-appeal no. AV(135)129/2013 dated 27th May 2013] of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Aurangabad dismissing appeal of assessee leading to the first of the appeals here. 4. The notices proposed recovery on the basis of 'manufacture', as defined in section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and covera....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) ] and M/s Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. UOI[2011(273)ELT10(SC)]...and I find that the same are squarely applicable interest the present case.' besides expounding on the manner in which a fiscal statute should be interpreted which, regrettably, has been misplaced for construing a definition in, and not the substantive portion of, Central Excise Act, 1944. That disputes of this nature continue to dot the terrain of indirect tax administration, either by obduracy on the part of 'manufacturers' or obstinacy in central excise authorities, despite the resolution of controversies by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in favour of the tax administration is surely painful to institutions such as the Tribunal. 5. Learned Consultant for appellant is also not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....v. Wimco Ltd [2008 (230) ELT 106 (Tri-Del)], in International Tobacco Co Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad [2004 (165) ELT 314 (Tri-Del], in TTK Textiles Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai [2006 (194) ELT 332 (Tri-Chennai)], in Dolsun Containers Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur [2003 (151) ELT 624 (Tri-Delhi)] and in VVF Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Daman [2009 (248) ELT 593 (Tri- Ahmd)]. 7. There is no doubt that similar demands, for at and around the same period, relating to other jurisdictions stood resolved in the case of the appellant herein at the level of the first appellate authority. Those have attained finality since then. The first appellate authority may have been unaware of....