Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S. Rayat Siksan Santha S Satara on 31 March, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. II APPEAL NO. E/553/05 MUM E/CO/186/05-MUM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. PII/BKS/429/2004 dtd. 29/9/2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, & Customs (Appeals-II), Pune] For approval and signature: Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member(Technical) Honble Mr Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial) =======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
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 Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
=======================================================
Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-II
:
Appellants
VS
M/s. Rayat Siksan Santhas Satara
:
Respondent
Appearance
Shri. N.N. Prabhudesai, Superintendent(A.R.)for the Appellants
None for the Respondent
CORAM:
Honble Mr. P.K. Jain, Member (Technical)
Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)
Date of hearing: 31/3/2015
Date of decision: /4/2015
ORDER NO.
Per : P.K. Jain
Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods namely wooden/steel furniture viz. Benches, Stools Chairs etc. Appellants were not paying any Central Excise duty. Appellants had another unit namely M/s. Educational Euip-Production Centre, North Region Ahemadnagar which was also engaged in the similar activities. Appellant are imparting education in state of Maharashtra through various schools and colleges at different places and in their own two workshops, they manufacture the said furniture and sell them to their schools and colleges.
2. The case was made against the appellants that the said goods are excisable and appellants are manufacturing and clearing the goods without payment of duty. Appellants took a stand that they are not manufacturer; goods are manufactured by the independent contractor. The said contention of the appellant was rejected by original authority and also by the first appellate authority on the ground that the workshops belong to the appellants, electricity is also being supplied by the appellants and contractor were arranging only for the labour and entire activities was under control and supervision of the appellants. First appellate authority however set aside the interest under Section 11AB and penalty under Section 11AC.
3. Revenue is in appeal against setting aside the interest and penalty. Ld. A.R. explained the whole case and reiterates the various ground enumerated in the ground of appeal.
4. None appeared on behalf of the respondent.
5. We find that there is no dispute about the leviability of the duty. Respondent had already paid duty at the time of investigation itself. Only issue before us is relating to interest under old Section 11AB an penalty under Section 11AC. We find that the penalty under Section 11AC is leviable where any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded by reasons of fraud, collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts, or contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty. Keeping in view nature of the dispute as contended by the appellant as also his conduct right from the time of investigation and the nature of activities in which they are engaged, we do find any ingredient as enumerated under Section 11AC is satisfied. In view of the said position we do not find any reason to levy the penalty under Section 11AC. We also find that the in this case demand is for the period 1998 onwards and at the relevant time provision under Section 11AB were similar to that 11AC. Accordingly, in our view for the same reasons, interest is also not chargeable. Appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed. Cross objection is disposed of in above terms.
(Operative part pronounce in court on /4/2015)
Ramesh Nair
Member (Judicial)
P.K. Jain
Member (Technical)
sk
2