Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.21 seconds)
Cce, Mumbai -Iv vs M/S. Dilip Chhabria Designs Pvt. Ltd on 30 April, 2015 cites

M/S. Maruti Udyog Ltd vs Cce, Delhi-Iii on 24 July, 2014

(c) Maruti Udyog Vs CCE[2002(146) ELT 427(Tri. Del.)] As regard duty demand on removal of add on kit without payment of duty from Powai unit to silvassa unit, he submits that the goods were not properly accounted for by the Silvassa unit therefore it amounts to clandestine removal and duty was correctly proposed. He further submits that the Ld. Commissioner has dropped the demand on the ground that silvassa unit was entitle for Modvat credit therefore even if the duty not paid on the clearances made by Powai unit, it amounts to revenue neutral which is not as per statute. The Powai unit is independently registered and whatever goods manufactured and cleared are liable for duty irrespective whether duty is available as Modvat credit to the Silvassa unit. He further submits that Ld. Commissioner observed that goods transferred from Powai unit to Silvassa units were accounted for by the later, the excise duty would have been discharged at the time of their further clearance of Silvassa unit therefore demand of duty on goods transferred from Powai unit would amount to double demand of duty and that the department should have worked out total clearance from Silvassa unit including those seized from Powai unit. In this regard he submits that Ld. Commissioner made a serious error in as much as no goods were seized at Powai unit on 30/12/2002 therefore the entire findings based on such wrong fact are incorrect. He further submits that during the physical stock at Silvassa unit, no excess stock was found so as to assumed that duty would be paid on its further clearance from Silvassa unit. He also submits that no evidence was produced regarding duty paid clearance from Silvassa unit of the goods said to have been transferred from Powai unit. Therefore the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 11,66,802/- raised in the show cause notice dated 1/1/2003 was liable to confirmed. In regard to OIO No. 27/2003 dated 10/12/2003 he submits that demand of Rs. 16,48,750/- though dropped by the tribunal vide order dated 22/7/2004 but the Honble Bombay high vide order dated 12/3/2015 maintained the demand confirmed by original order, hence the same attained finality. Regarding duty of Rs. 4,93,276/-, on shortage of goods found in silvassa unit, duty of Rs. 1,01,644/- on the kits manufactured but not accounted for in the statutory records and duty of Rs. 21,917/- in respect of kits cleared from Silvassa unit without payment of duty, he submits that Ld. Commissioner dropped the demand on the basis that the stock taking was carried out for individual item whereas accounting was done as per kit and one kit consist of number of parts. He submits that there was no dispute at the time of panachanama drawn therefore whatsoever shortage was recorded at the time of panachanama the same cannot be disputed at later stage. As regard SSI exemption Notification No. 8/2001-Cus claimed by the respondent and allowed by the Ld. Commissioner, he submits that there is apparent error in the computation of aggregate clearance value for the period of 2000-01 in as much as Ld. Commissioner considered the aggregate value of Rs. 2,46,58,245/- which is below the threshold limit the Rs. 3 Crores and accordingly SSI exemption was extended during the year 2001-02. In this regard he submits that the Ld. Commissioner has not taken into account value of Rs. 1,03,04,873/- towards the clearance of buses /tempo traveler for arriving at the aggregate value of clearances during the year 2000-01. In view of this undisputed facts the total aggregate value during the 2000-01 comes to Rs. 3,49,63,118/-(Rs. 2,46,58,245/- + 1,03,04,873/-). In view of this the respondent is not eligible for SSI exemption during the period 2001-02. Therefore dropping of demand by Ld. Commissioner extending the benefit of SSI exemption in all the three impugned orders are apparently incorrect.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 1 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1