Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Lucknow Versus M\/s Bohra Sales & Trading
Central Excise
2019 (1) TMI 1225 – CESTAT ALLAHABAD – TMI
CESTAT ALLAHABAD – AT
Dated:- 7-1-2019
APPEAL No. E\/70528\/2017-EX[DB] – FINAL ORDER NO. – 70080\/2019
Central Excise
Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical)
\nShri Mohd. Altaf (Asstt. Commr.) AR for Appellant
\nAbsent for Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer: Archana Wadhwa
\nBeing aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. We have heard Shri Mohd. Altaf learned A.R. appearing for the Revenue. Nobody appeared for the respondents.
\n2. As per facts on record, the party is engaged in the manufacturing of Packaged Drinking water under CETH 22 of the first schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as amended by Central Excise Tariff (Amendment) Act, 2005. A visit was made to by the department officers, the seizure of goods valued at Rs. 91,872\/- <\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ngly, 4 show cause notices were issued to the party and subsequently the impugned Order-in-Original was passed confirming the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 46,35,990\/- for the period 2011-12 to June 2013, Rs. 4, 94,997\/- for the period July, 2013 to March, 2014 and Rs. 18,09,206\/- for the period April, 2014 to December, 2014 under Section 11A(1), Central Excise Act, 1994. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n any kind in the factory and they have no idea of any kind about any of these entries in the BST register and who has made them.” = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n has never exceeded the threshold limit of1.5 Crore & their factory is situated in rural area also, the party is eligible for SSI exemption even if they have manufactured goods bearing a brand of another person. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Lucknow Versus M\/s Bohra Sales & TradingCentral Excise2019 (1) TMI 1225 – CESTAT ALLAHABAD – TMICESTAT ALLAHABAD – ATDated:- 7-1-2019APPEAL No. E\/70528\/2017-EX[DB] – FINAL ORDER NO. – 70080\/2019Central ExciseMrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Mohd. Altaf (Asstt. Commr.) AR for Appellant Absent for … Continue reading “Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Lucknow Versus M\/s Bohra Sales & Trading”<\/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-16330","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16330","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=16330"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16330\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16330"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16330"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16330"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the confiscation of the manufactured finished goods i.e. 11,136 bottles of the packaged drinking water, kept in the party's office premises, valued at Rs. 91,872\/- involving Central Excise duty of Rs. 11,355\/- seized on 12\/07\/2013 under Rule 25(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. He also confirmed the demand of interest as applicable on such demand of Rs. 46,35,990\/- for the period 2011-12 to June 2013, Rs. 4,94,997\/- for the period July 2013 to March 2014, Rs. 18,09,206\/- for the period April 2014 to December, 2014 under Section (11AA) of the Act.
\nHe also confirmed the im<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\nb) Further, party has never accepted the ownership of register in his statements tendered before the department, rather claimed that the said register belong to loading persons and he produced the said person before raiding team on the day of search and he claimed that the raiding team was convinced with his explanation.
\nc) The Commissioner (Appeals) find force in the statement of the party, as investigation & impugned order never challenged the statement of the party. Thus, it may be safely assumed that statement was true in nature. Further the register comprises many brands mentioned in the register, which were not being manufactured by the party such as Mount Kailash, KAN, McDowell & Soda that also supports the claim of the party that register belongs to contractor who works with other entities. Thus, the genuineness of register, maintained by the party <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\ne) Regarding the confiscation of the goods he observed that the goods were seized by the department under the belief that the goods were manufactured and kept in the unregistered premises with intent of removal of the same clandestinely without payment of duty. The party was quite eligible for the SSI exemption, for the period 2011-12 to 2013-14, there was no need to take registration in these financial years. Thus, he construed that the finished goods found in the premises are not liable to confiscation.
\nThe Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the party and added that since the demand against party is not sustainable, therefore, interest & penalty are also not sustainable.
\nHence the present appeal by the Revenue.
\n6. On going through the grounds of appeal, we find <\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n