Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Madhukar Ssk Ltd. And D.H. Barole vs Cce on 2 June, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2005(190)ELT508(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER
S.S. Sekhon, Member(T)
1. The appellants are an assessee of Central Excise engaged in manufacture of sugar, molasses and Ethyl Alcohol, and their Managing Director.
2. The assessee has been denied the benefit of notification 67/95 claim on molasses used up in intermediate stage of manufacture of Ethyl Alcohol which was partially cleared on payment of duties and partially used for potable purpose and therefore no excise duty was paid on such potable Alcohol/spirit.
3. In view of the fact that the appellants are reversing 8% of the price off the exempted final product at the time of their clearance from the factory when Alcohol/Spirit is manufactured from molasses purchased from outside and on which duty input credit has been availed will not ipso factor obviate the applicability of notification 67/95. The end product being non-excisable when cleared without payment of duty, then such quantity of molasses which were used in the manufacture of that Alcohol/Spirit cannot be eligible to the benefit of 67/95. The notice issued for recovery of duty on such molasses at the appropriate rate and the duty demand is therefore to be up held.
4. Considering the plea of bar of limitation, the earlier notice dated 19.2.99 is found to not on this issue as also perusal of the notice issued in this case reveals that it mentions about the Jurisdictional Assistant Collector to have issued a direction to the assessee to pay the duty on molasses which are out in eligibility to notification 67/95. We find no reason to grant the benefit of bar on limitation to the appellants when they defy an order have evaded the duty by availing an exemption of notification 67/95 which is not eligible. The plea of bar of limitation therefore is rejected.
5. Considering the plea of the Managing Director who has been imposed Rs. 25 thousand penalty, it is found that a plea of Managing Director not looking after day to day work of the factory cannot itself obviate the penalty liability. The Managing Director of a factory is fully responsible for ensuring the compliance to law and direction issued in writing. The penalty on the Managing Director is required to be up held since his concern with the evasion of duty cannot be denied.
6. We find no merits in the appeals. Both appeals are consequently dismissed.