2025 (8) TMI 1

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ned order. The second Appellant has challenged the levy of penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 since he is the Managing Partner of the Appellant--firm. 2. Facts in brief as could be gathered from the impugned Order--in--Original No.15/2016 dated 09.02.2016 admits that the Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Corrugated Paper Cartons Boxes; they also cleared such products without payment of duty, without even Central Excise Registration and without following the procedure prescribed under the Central Excise Law. There appears to be a search by the Headquarters Preventive Unit, Puducherry followed by the issuance of Show Cause Notice dated 01.05.2015 to which it appears that the Appellant filed its replies. The Adju....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Industries (I) Ltd. Vs CCE Chennai 2004 (165) ELT 240 (Tri.--Chennai) as confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2015 (320) ELT A328 (SC) (ii) Shri Krsna Urja Project Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Jaipur -- 2019 (369) ELT 926 (Tri.--Del.) (iii) Omkar Traders Vs CCE Ahmedabad -- 2010 (252) ELT 572 (Tri.--Ahmd.) (iv) Alpa Management Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs CST Bangalore -- 2007 (6) STR 181 (Tri.--Bang.) (v) Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company Vs CCE Bombay -- 1995 (78) ELT 401 (SC) (vi) Densons Pultretaknik Vs CCE -- 2003 (155) ELT 211 (SC) (vii) CCE Baroda Vs L.M.P. Precision Eng. Co. Ltd. -- 2004 (163) ELT 290 (SC) (viii) Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd. Vs CCE Meerut -- 2005 (188) ELT 149 (SC) (ix) Uniworth Textiles Ltd. Vs CCE Raipur 2013 (288....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Relied Upon Document (RUD) even whispered about in the SCN; the same position continued until the passing of the Order--in--Original and therefore, we concur with one of the arguments of the ld. Advocate that the demand alleging suppression has been raised by relying only on the statutory documents maintained under different tax laws. 8. It is an admitted position of law that the purposes of Direct Tax and Indirect Tax which operate on different platforms, are different and the requirements of maintaining accounts/books may thus differ. The only common factor, however, is the collection of tax as authorized by the relevant statute/s and it is undisputed that income reported for the purpose of income--tax may not attract Central Excise dut....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ount the expenditure as well and so the Adjudicating Authority appears to have proceeded differently. Surprisingly, when amendment w.e.f. 01.09.2014 vide Notification 21/2014--CE (NT) dated 11.07.2014 was brought to his notice whereby 3rd proviso to Rule 4(1) and last proviso to Rule 4(7) of CCR, 2004 came to be inserted restricting the period from one--year to six months for availing credit of duty paid on inputs, the Adjudicating Authority adopts the same for the period under dispute though most part of the dispute related to the period prior to 01.09.2014, by categorically holding that '.. in the absence of any such explicit provisions, no inference can be drawn that the invoices issued prior to 01.09.2014 will not be hit the time prescr....