MP High Court: Estranged Husband Entitled to Loss of Consortium Compensation After Wife’s Death  ||  J&K & Ladakh HC: Claims under Roshni Act Void Ab Initio, Ownership Rights Null from Inception  ||  Madras High Court Directs Expedited Trials in 216 Pending Criminal Cases Against MPs and MLAs  ||  MP High Court: Allowing Minor to Drive Without Valid License Constitutes Breach of Insurance Policy  ||  Punjab & Haryana High Court: Cyber Fraud Cases Uphold Public Trust, Cannot Be Quashed by Compromise  ||  SC: Customer-Banker Relationship Based on Mutual Trust, Postmaster’s Reinstatement Quashed  ||  Supreme Court: Company Buying Software for Efficiency and Profit Is Not a ‘Consumer’ under CPA  ||  SC: Long Custody or Trial Delay Not Ground for Bail in Commercial Narcotic Cases if S.37 Unmet  ||  Calcutta HC Disqualifies Politician Mukul Roy from Assembly under Anti-Defection Law  ||  Supreme Court Bans Mining in and Around National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved