Naveen Rastogi & M\/s. S.R. Protus Hygiene Pvt. Ltd. Versus CGST, Delhi-I
Central Excise
2018 (11) TMI 903 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 31-10-2018
Excise Appeal No. E\/51901-51902\/2017 EX-DB] – FINAL ORDER NOs. 53261-53262\/2018
Central Excise
MRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And MR. BIJAY KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
\nPresent for the Appellant: Shri. S.C. Kamra, Advocate
\nPresent for the Respondent: Shri. S.K. Bansal, D.R.
\nORDER
\nPER: ARCHANA WADHWA
\nAs per facts on record, the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of various types of paper tissues, paper hand towels, paper face tissues etc. by cutting and slitting jumbo rolls of paper and were not registered with the Central Excise Department and were not paying any duty on their final product by entertaining a bonafide belief that in terms of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. S.R. Tissues Pvt. Ltd. – 2005 (186) ELT 385 (S.C.), sl<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n r imposition of penalty on both the appellants. The said proceedings culminated into an order passed by the Asstt. Commissioner confiscating the goods with a redemption fine of Rs. 3,00,000\/- and imposing penalty of Rs. 3,00,000\/- on the manufacturing unit. Further penalty of Rs. 20,000\/- was imposed on Shri. Naveen Rastogi, Director of the Unit. The said order was upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) and hence the present appeal. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n .R. submits that the issue of manufacture stands settled against the assessee, in their own case. As such, he submits that the goods seized from the appellants premises, which were likely to be removed without payment of duty, stands justifiably confiscated. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Naveen Rastogi & M\/s. S.R. Protus Hygiene Pvt. Ltd. Versus CGST, Delhi-ICentral Excise2018 (11) TMI 903 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMICESTAT NEW DELHI – ATDated:- 31-10-2018Excise Appeal No. E\/51901-51902\/2017 EX-DB] – FINAL ORDER NOs. 53261-53262\/2018Central ExciseMRS. ARCHANA WADHWA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And MR. BIJAY KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Present for the Appellant: Shri. S.C. Kamra, Advocate … Continue reading “Naveen Rastogi & M\/s. S.R. Protus Hygiene Pvt. Ltd. Versus CGST, Delhi-I”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15065","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15065","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=15065"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15065\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15065"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15065"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15065"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant fairly agrees that based upon the above development, another proceedings were also initiated against them proposing confirmation of demand for the past period, by invoking the extended period of limitation. The said proceedings reached the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide its order reported in 2018 – TIOL – 2486 – CESTAT – Delhi, held that the activities undertaken by the appellant amounted to manufacture. The said view was undertaken on the basis of subsequent decision of S.C. in the case of Servo Med. Industries – 2015<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n6. After appreciating the submissions made by both the sides, we note that the issue of 'manufacture' is no longer res-integra, having been decided against the assessee, in their own case. However, the issue as to whether in the above facts and circumstances of the case, Revenue was justified in confiscating the goods and imposing the penalties upon both the appellants is required to be examined. Admittedly, during the relevant period, there was Supreme Court decision which held that cutting, slitting activities of jumbo rolls into smaller pieces does not amount to manufacture. The subsequent decision, which stands relied upon by the Tribunal in the assessees own case was passed on in 2015, whereas the seizure relates to July, 201<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n