Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Global Aluminium Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 6 October, 2015
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH
BANGALORE
Application(s) Involved:
E/MISC/161/2011 in E/1055/2009-SM
Appeal(s) Involved:
E/1055/2009-SM
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 17-2009 dated 28/10/2009 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Hyderabad-I]
For approval and signature:
HON'BLE SMT ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
GLOBAL ALUMINIUM LTD.
KALLAKAL VILLAGE,TOOPRAN MANDAL,HYDERABAD
Appellant(s)
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax HYDERABAD-I
KENDRIYA SHULK BHAVAN,
L.B STADIUM ROAD, BASHEERBAGH,
HYDERABAD, - 500004
ANDHRA PRADESH
Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. B. Venugopal, Adv SWAMY ASSOCIATES G-8, FORTUNA ICON APARTMENTS, JODIDHAR ASWATHAPPA FARM, BEHIND NAGARJUNA, SAHAKAR NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560092 KARNATAKA For the Appellant Mr. Ajay Saxena, A.R. For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 06/10/2015 Date of Decision: 06/10/2015 CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Final Order No. 22004 / 2015 Per : ARCHANA WADHWA Investigations were initiated against the appellant who are manufacturers of aluminium products. It was found that they were involved in clandestine activities. The appellant accepted the fact of clandestine removal and accordingly deposited duty of Rs. 59,36,031/- along with interest of Rs. 80,814/- and penalty of 25% and claimed that in terms of the provisions of Section 11A(2), the proceedings should be held conclusive and no further adjudication should take place. However, Commissioner vide his impugned order observed that inasmuch as the said Proviso does not relate to confiscation of the goods, the proceedings for confiscation of the excess found goods in the factory is required to be undertaken. Accordingly vide his impugned order, he confiscated those goods with an option to the appellant to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine Rs 30.25 lakhs. The said order of the Commissioner is impugned before the Tribunal.
2. After hearing both sides I find that the relevant Proviso to Section 11 A (2) of the Central Excise Act reads as under:
Provided that if such person has paid the duty in full together with, interest and penalty under sub-section (1A), the proceedings in respect of such person and other persons to whom notice are served under sub-section (1) shall, without prejudice to the provisions of Section 9, 9A and 9AA, be deemed to be conclusive as to the matters stated therein. As seen from the above Proviso, if an appellant pays duty along the interest and penalty in terms of Subjection (1A), the proceedings in respect of such persons are deemed to be conclusive. The contention of the Revenue is that the same are conclusive as to the matter stated therein. Inasmuch as the confiscation is not the subject of the said Proviso, they can go ahead with the confiscation.
3. I find no merits in the above reasoning of the adjudicating authority. Reference to to the matters stated therein is admittedly relates to the payment of duty, interest and penalty in respect of the goods which stand cleared clandestinely. If an assessee has accepted the said allegation and has paid the duty, interest and penalty, the proceedings in respect of such activities are required to be deemed as conclusive which means that no further action is required to be taken against the assessee. As such, I find no merits in the Revenues stand that the adjudication in respect of confiscation of the goods can still take place. The entire idea of the said Proviso is to reduce the litigation, which stands foiled by the Revenue based upon wrong interpretation of the Proviso.
4. In view of the above, I find no merits in the impugned order. Accordingly, the same is set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief.
(Order pronounced in open court) ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER pnr 2