SC: Repeated Anticipatory Bail Pleas Abuse Process and Reduce Litigation to a Gamble  ||  Supreme Court: State Officers Cannot Back Litigants Through Affidavits Against the Law  ||  Supreme Court: Accused Deserves Parity With Discharged Co-Accused if Evidence is Not Stronger  ||  SC Allows Euthanasia of Rabid Stray Dogs if Necessary and Protects Officials Acting in Good Faith  ||  Kerala High Court: University Syndicate Cannot Sue Chancellor as Both Form Same Legal Body  ||  Kerala High Court: Unsigned FIS is Admissible if Informant Confirms its Contents in Court  ||  J&K&L High Court: Purchaser’s Structure on Migrant Land Alone Cannot Block Sale Deed Registration  ||  Supreme Court: Bail Remains the Rule and Jail the Exception, Even under the UAPA Law  ||  Supreme Court: Principle of Res Judicata Also Applies Between Stages of the Same Case  ||  Supreme Court: Govt Servant Has No Right to Old Rule Promotion Just Due to Earlier Vacancies    

Vishnu Fragrance Pvt. Limited Vs. Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax and Central Excise - (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) (17 Jun 2021)

Unless the declaration filed by a manufacturer is found to be untrue or false, no demand for additional duty can be raised

MANU/CE/0063/2021

Excise

The issue in present appeal is whether demand for differential duty can be raised on assumptions and presumptions under the Chewing and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machine (Capacity Determination & Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010, read with Section 3A of the Act.

The Appellant was engaged in the manufacture of chewing tobacco and was registered with the Excise Department and paying duty under the compounded levy scheme under Section 3A of the Act read with Chewing & Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machine (Capacity Determination & Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010 (CT Rules, 2010).

Under the scheme of CT Rules, 2010 read with Section 3A of the Act, unless the declaration filed by a manufacturer is found to be untrue or false, no demand for additional duty can be raised. In Rule 18(2) of the CT Rules, 2010 - if it is found that, goods have been manufactured or cleared from a unit which is not registered or the number of machine or the RSP of the pouches is contrary to the declaration, than the assessee can subject to demand of the duty and levy of penalty. Admittedly, in the facts of the present case, the Department have not found any case of mis-declaration or any other misgiving on the part of the appellant.

The whole case of Revenue is made out on the basis of assumptions and presumptions, based on the subsequent machine installed in the month of May, 2010, which is not permissible under the scheme of CT Rules, 2010. The order determining duty liability dated 26.04.2010 has not been appealed, and as such, the same is binding on the Department. The impugned order is set aside. Appeal allowed.

Tags : DEMAND   DIFFERENTIAL DUTY   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved