Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S.Raja Dyeing & Bleaching Co on 8 April, 2011
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal Nos.E/558, 631/2004
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.02/2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Madurai]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice-President
Honble Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? :
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? :
3. Whether the Members wish to see the fair copy of
the Order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? :
Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai Appellant/s
M/s.Raja Dyeing & Bleaching Co.
Versus
M/s.Raja Dyeing & Bleaching Co.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai
Respondent/s
Appearance :
Shri T.H. Rao, SDR Shri S.Muthuvenkataraman, Adv.
For the Revenue For the Assessee CORAM:
Honble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member Date of hearing : 08.04.2011 Date of decision : 08.04.2011 Final Order No.____________ Per Jyoti Balasundaram In this case, the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai confirmed a demand of Rs.75,259/-on processed terry toweling fabrics, on which process were carried on with the aid of power on job work basis by the assessees, along with interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act and imposed penalty under Section 11AC ibid, applying the proviso to Section 11A of the Act. The contention of the assessees that they did not undertake the process of bleaching/dyeing on terry toweling fabrics on job work basis has been rejected. The assessees are in appeal against confirmation of duty and imposition of penalty, while the Revenue is in appeal against reduction of penalty to Rs.7,500/- by the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. Heard both sides.
3. We find that the material in record clearly shows that the assessees undertook bleaching/dyeing on terry toweling fabrics on job work basis with the aid of power using winch machines and also without the aid of power. The fact of manufacture was not disclosed to the department and the plea of bonafide belief also is not available to the assessees, as they had not obtained any clarification from the department nor filed any declaration. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal of the assessees. The appeal of the Revenue is allowed as the charge of clandestine clearance stands established, in which case, there is no room in law for reduction of penalty amount under the provisions of Section 11AC.
4. In the result, Appeal No.E/631/2004 is dismissed and Appeal No.E/558/2004 of the Revenue is allowed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM)
TECHNICAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT
ksr
08-04-2011
Ms.Divya Balasundaram
Manu Law Associates
Advocates & Legal Consultants
G-13, Nizamuddin West
New Delhi - 110013.
Cellphone - 9999621172
1
2