Calcutta HC Disqualifies Politician Mukul Roy from Assembly under Anti-Defection Law  ||  Supreme Court Bans Mining in and Around National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries  ||  Supreme Court Terms Delay in Framing Charges for 4 Years in Maharashtra Case ‘Shocking’  ||  Kerala High Court: Widow’s Remarriage No Bar to Compassionate Appointment  ||  Delhi HC: Child Care Leave Not Absolute but Cannot Be Denied Arbitrarily  ||  Bombay HC: Furnace Oil Not Part of ‘Plant & Machinery’, No Complete Sales Tax Set-Off  ||  MP HC: Injury Not Required to Prove Attempt to Murder  ||  Supreme Court: Tenant Must Pay Rent Despite Appeal Against Fixation Order Without Stay  ||  Supreme Court: Counterclaim under Order 8 Rule 6A CPC Allowed Only Against Plaintiff  ||  SC: Externally Procured Parts Given For Assembly, Not Used in Manufacture, Not Liable to Excise Duty    

Surya Life Science Limited and Ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bharuch - (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) (14 Aug 2018)

Deemed exports cannot be clubbed for the purpose of calculation of clearances in DTA

MANU/CS/0072/2018

Excise

Present appeals have been filed by Surya Life Sciences Limited and its director against confirmation of demand of duty and imposition of penalties. Learned Counsel for the Appellant pointed out that the Appellant is 100% EOU. A case was booked against the Appellant for exceeding the limit of their DTA clearance. He argued that the entire demand is based on ER-II returns submitted by the Appellant and the entire demand is raised by invoking extended period of limitation. In these circumstances, he argued that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked.

In terms of decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Anita Synthetics Pvt. Limited, deemed exports cannot be clubbed for the purpose of calculation of clearances in DTA and thus, the appeal on this count is allowed. A perusal of the show cause notice shows that, the entire data for issue of show cause notice has been derived from the returns filed by the assessee. In the circumstances, the appellant has disclosed the entire clearances to the Revenue therefore, the charge of suppression of facts or misdeclaration cannot be invoked against the Appellant. It is a failure on the part of the Revenue to detect the mistake of the Appellant.

Regarding the need of invocation of extended period of limitation in the cases where the B-17 Bond is executed is concerned, the matter has been clarified by the Tribunal in the case of Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited. Therefore, demand is not sustainable on limitation. Since, the demand is not sustainable, the penalties imposed on the Appellant and its Director are also set-aside. Appeals allowed.

Relevant : Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs vs. Anita Synthetics (P.) Ltd. MANU/GJ/1027/2013

Tags : DEMAND   CONFIRMATION   VALIDITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved