2025 (10) TMI 67

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d against the Order-in-Original No. 27/COMMR/CGST & CE/HWH/Adjn/2017-18 dated 26.12.2017 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Central Tax, G.S.T. Howrah Commissionerate, M.S. Building, Custom House, 15/1, Strand Rd., Kolkata, wherein the Ld. Commissioner has confirmed a differential central excise duty demand of Rs.2,67,83,024/- against M/s. Omkar Infracon Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the appellant no. 1 / appellant-company), along with interest thereon. The Ld. Commissioner also imposed a penalty of Rs.2,67,83,024/- upon the appellant no. 1 in terms of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Penalties, each of Rs.75.00 lakhs, were also imposed on Shri Sandeep Khandelia a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ual nomenclature of the goods manufactured by the appellant is "Fly Ash Bricks" which is not eligible for the exemption as provided under the said notification. On the basis of the said allegation of misdeclaration, central excise duty amounting to Rs. 2,67,83,024/- (including education cess and secondary & higher education cess), has been demanded. The two directors of the company, viz. appellant nos. 2 and 3, were also made co-noticees and called upon to show cause as to why penalty under Rule 26(1) of the said Rules should not be imposed upon each of them. 2.3. On adjudication, the Ld. Commissioner, vide the impugned order herein, has confirmed the demand of central excise duty of Rs. 2,67,83,024/- along with interest and penalties. A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion No. 1/2011-CE dated March 1, 2011. 3.2. Accordingly, the appellants prayed for setting aside the demands of central excise duty, along with interest, and the penalties imposed on them, as confirmed in the impugned order. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 6. We observe that the appellant-company manufactures sand lime bricks, which is a type of fly ash bricks. It is seen that both sand lime bricks and fly ash bricks are classifiable under the Chapter 68 only. We find that there is no other tariff sub-heading available in the Central Excise Tariff which provides classification of sand lime bri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The second appellant has deliberately classified the goods so as to claim the ineligible exemption. Therefore, he prays that the impugned Order may be set aside and the Revenue's appeals may be allowed. 3. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submits that the Notification No. 01/2011-CE dated 01/03/2011 grants exemption for the bricks falling under Chapter 68 or Chapter 69. The description given therein is sand-lime bricks. There is no specification as to what should be the percentage of sand and lime etc. in order to avail the exemption. Therefore, he justifies the exemption granted under Notification No. 01/2011-CE dated 01/03/2011. He has also relied upon the decision of CESTAT, New Delhi in the case of Sa....