Taneja Mines Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner, Central Tax, GST Delhi -Delhi 2
Central Excise
2019 (1) TMI 234 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 15-10-2018
Excise Appeal No. E\/52128\/2015, E\/53164\/2015, E\/50094\/2016, E\/52286\/2016 [DB] – IO\/E\/91\/2018-EX[DB]
Central Excise
MR. C.L. MAHAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) And MRS. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
\nPresent for the Appellant: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate
\nPresent for the Respondent: Mr. R.K. Mishra, DR
\nORDER
\nPER: RACHNA GUPTA
\nPresent Order deals with the 4 (four) Appeals with the following details:
\nAppeals No.
\nE\/52286\/2016
\nE\/50094\/2016
\nE\/52128\/2015
\nE\/53164\/2015
\nImpugned O-I-O No.
\n22\/2015-16 dated 18.03.16
\n12\/2015-16 dated 26.10.15
\n24-25\/2014-15 dated 25.02.15
\n29-33\/2014-15 dated 25.03.15
\nSCNs dated
\n04.02.04
\n30.12.14
\n23.12.05 & 29.11.06
\n03.07.07, 28.01.08, 24.09.08, 23.03.09 & 14.12.09
\nPeriod of dispute
\nApril 1998 to December 2003
\nJanuary 2004 to November 2004
\nDecember 2004 to Se<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n e engaged in manufacture and in clandestine removal of the aforementioned goods which were excisable. A search was conducted by the officers of anti evasion of Central Excise Commissionerate in the premises of the appellant on 10.10.2003. It is thereafter that the Show Cause Notices as mentioned above were served upon the appellant for the respective period and the respective demand. Those demands have partly been confirmed. The major part of the said demand has been dropped vide the respective order as already mentioned above. Being aggrieved of the demand confirmed, the Appeals in hand have been filed. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n .C.) to impress upon that when the appeal of the party is admitted by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Petition need to be adjourned sine die till decision of the Apex Court. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ore this Tribunal was filed. Department also filed appeal against dropping. Both these appeals were decided vide F.O. No. 611-614\/2010 dated 13.08.2010 reported as 2010 (257..) ELT 471 (Del.) as has also been conceded by the parties. Vide the said FO appeal of assessee was rejected and that of department was partly allowed, confirming the activity as manufacture (except for 'other articles') and classifying framed pictures under Chapter 8306 and Desktop clocks under Chapter 9102. Being aggrieved of confirmation of entire demand, Civil Appeal No.9478-9479\/2010 was preferred before Hon'ble Supreme Court (as conceded by both the parties). = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Taneja Mines Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner, Central Tax, GST Delhi -Delhi 2Central Excise2019 (1) TMI 234 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMICESTAT NEW DELHI – ATDated:- 15-10-2018Excise Appeal No. E\/52128\/2015, E\/53164\/2015, E\/50094\/2016, E\/52286\/2016 [DB] – IO\/E\/91\/2018-EX[DB]Central ExciseMR. C.L. MAHAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) And MRS. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Present for the Appellant: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate … Continue reading “Taneja Mines Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner, Central Tax, GST Delhi -Delhi 2”<\/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-15964","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15964","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=15964"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15964\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15964"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15964"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15964"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. We have heard Mr. Amit Jain, Ld. Advocate for the appellant and Mr. R.K. Mishra, Ld. DR for the Department.
\n4. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellant is importing gold plated nickel plates with the requisite\/customized prints. The appellant is purchasing the frames of different materials and the only activity performed is of affixing the said plates within t<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n5. In addition, ld. Counsel also objected the impugned SCN as being barred by time for want of any evidence for alleged intent of tax evasion.
\n6. Ld. DR though has conceded for the admissibility of the Appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court and that no outcome as yet. But has impressed upon that the impugned goods are otherwise excisable and the activity of the appellant amounts to manufacture. It is also impressed upon that two out of four of these appeals are the subject matter of appeal before Hon'ble Apex Court, hence are no more maintainable.
\n7. After hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion that the controversy in all these Appeals is common as to whether the impugned activity of the appellant amounts to manufacture and as to whether the products so processed fall under Chapter 4901 where the duty is nil or f<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n10. It is also observed that the appeals which were decided by O-I-O dated 28.04.2005 and went to Hon'ble Supreme Court are Appeal Nos. E\/52286\/2016 and E\/50094\/2016. However, in compliance, with the directions of the CESTAT Order dated 13.08.2010, the appellant provided requisite data for the period 1998 to December, 2003 to the Department vide their l<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n