SlideShare a Scribd company logo
1 of 2
1
2008 (230) E.L.T. 442 (Tri. - Del.)
IN THE CESTAT, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
[COURT NO. III]
S/Shri M. Veeraiyan, Member (T) and P.K. Das, Member (J)
KNIT FOULDS P. LTD.
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JALANDHAR
Final Order No. 423/2008-EX(PB), dated 20-6-2008 in Appeal No. E/4290/2004
Demand - Limitation - Extended period, non invocation of -
Clearances at two factories required to be disclosed to claim exemption
under notification No. 8/99-C.E. - Assessee bona fidely disclosing only
clearance from other unit under one notification and not clearances
made under 5/99-C.E. - In absence of evidence about intention to evade
duty, same attributed to lack of understanding about notification - Case
of difference in interpretation - Extended period held not invocable,
penalty also set aside - Section 11A and 11AC of Central Excise Act,
1944. [para 6]
Appeal disposed off
REPRESENTED BY :Shri Sandeep Malhotra, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri Sanjay Kumar, DR, for the Respondent.
[Order per : M. Veeraiyan, Member (T) (for the Bench)]. - This is an appeal against
the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 257/CE/JAL/2004 dated 29-5-2004.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The relevant facts, in brief, are as follows :-
(a) The appellant has two units, one at Kapurthala and the other at Hoshiarpur.
(b) The Kapurthala unit was manufacturing some products for which they have
claimed value based exemption under Notification No. 5/99 and for other
products, they availed the value based exemption under Notification No. 8/99.
The unit at Hoshiarpur (the present appellant) manufactured products covered
under Notification No. 8/99.
(c) The appellant filed classification list in respect of their unit at Hoshiarpur wherein
they have indicated the existence of their other unit at Kapurthala and also
indicated the details of clearance of products covered under Notification No. 8/99
in respect of Kapurthala unit. However, they have not furnished the details and
value of clearance of the products covered under Notification No. 5/99.
(d) The original authority held that for the purpose of determining the eligibility to the
exemption under Notification No. 5/99 in respect of Hoshiarpur unit, entire value
of clearance of products of Kapurthala unit including those covered under
Notification No. 5/99 should have been disclosed and taken into account and
accordingly confirmed the demand of Rs. 79,911/- and imposed equal amount of
penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) concurred with the above decision.
4. The learned advocate pleads that they had no intention to suppress the relevant
details. They had disclosed the existence of the second unit. It was their stand that the value
of clearances covered by another notification need not be included for the purpose of unit
No. 2.
2
5. The learned DR submits that the clearance figures of both the products in respect
of Kapurthala should have been disclosed and the failure to furnish is wilful and with
intention to evade the excise duty. Therefore, he pleads for upholding the order of the
Commissioner (Appeals).
6. We have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides. Learned
advocate concedes that value of clearance of both the products relating to Kapurthala unit
are relevant for the purpose of determining the exemption to the Hosiarpur unit. However
non-furnishing of these details was not intentional. On perusal of the record, we find that
there is no evidence to suggest intention to evade on the part of the appellant. We are
inclined to accept that it was due to lack of understanding of the provisions of Notification. As
it appears to be case of difference in interpretation, we hold that invocation of extended
period for demanding duty is not justified. Imposition of penalty is also not warranted.
7. In the light of the above, we uphold the demand of duty involved within the normal
period of limitation and we set aside the demand of the balance of duty involved. Penalty is
set aside.
8. The appeal is disposed off with consequential relief as indicated above.
(Dictated in the open Court)
_______

More Related Content

What's hot

Secrecy directions and Restoration of Patents
Secrecy directions and Restoration of PatentsSecrecy directions and Restoration of Patents
Secrecy directions and Restoration of PatentsDVSResearchFoundatio
 
Can covid vaccines be used or acquired by Government?
Can covid vaccines be used or acquired by Government?Can covid vaccines be used or acquired by Government?
Can covid vaccines be used or acquired by Government?DVSResearchFoundatio
 
Smith v. commissioner
Smith v. commissionerSmith v. commissioner
Smith v. commissionerjrbampfield
 

What's hot (7)

Rti delhi hc judgment
Rti delhi hc judgmentRti delhi hc judgment
Rti delhi hc judgment
 
Takeover Panorama May 2014
Takeover Panorama May 2014Takeover Panorama May 2014
Takeover Panorama May 2014
 
Bee doc gazetted 311210
Bee doc gazetted 311210Bee doc gazetted 311210
Bee doc gazetted 311210
 
Secrecy directions and Restoration of Patents
Secrecy directions and Restoration of PatentsSecrecy directions and Restoration of Patents
Secrecy directions and Restoration of Patents
 
Can covid vaccines be used or acquired by Government?
Can covid vaccines be used or acquired by Government?Can covid vaccines be used or acquired by Government?
Can covid vaccines be used or acquired by Government?
 
Registration and grant of Patent
Registration and grant of PatentRegistration and grant of Patent
Registration and grant of Patent
 
Smith v. commissioner
Smith v. commissionerSmith v. commissioner
Smith v. commissioner
 

Similar to Case law knit

Omaxe reviews - srb15042014 cw14512013
Omaxe reviews -  srb15042014 cw14512013Omaxe reviews -  srb15042014 cw14512013
Omaxe reviews - srb15042014 cw14512013omaxe-reviews
 
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has no power to stay prosecution of taxpayers i...
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has no power to stay prosecution of taxpayers i...Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has no power to stay prosecution of taxpayers i...
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has no power to stay prosecution of taxpayers i...D Murali ☆
 
HC Appeal_LNS_2013_1_364
HC Appeal_LNS_2013_1_364HC Appeal_LNS_2013_1_364
HC Appeal_LNS_2013_1_364Mahendra Kumar
 
Anoopgarh K.V.Sah Samiti vs. ACIT, Sriganganagar
Anoopgarh K.V.Sah Samiti vs. ACIT, SriganganagarAnoopgarh K.V.Sah Samiti vs. ACIT, Sriganganagar
Anoopgarh K.V.Sah Samiti vs. ACIT, Sriganganagarsuresh ojha
 
New York Empire and Triple H v Maswin binti Ripit and 5 Ors
New York Empire and Triple H v Maswin binti Ripit and 5 OrsNew York Empire and Triple H v Maswin binti Ripit and 5 Ors
New York Empire and Triple H v Maswin binti Ripit and 5 OrsTiu Foo Woei
 
Biocon vs income tax on esop (Discounted ESOPs Are Not Taxable)
Biocon vs income tax on esop (Discounted ESOPs Are Not Taxable)Biocon vs income tax on esop (Discounted ESOPs Are Not Taxable)
Biocon vs income tax on esop (Discounted ESOPs Are Not Taxable)NextBigWhat
 
Jammu kashmir ladakh hc order
Jammu kashmir ladakh hc orderJammu kashmir ladakh hc order
Jammu kashmir ladakh hc orderZahidManiyar
 
Vinod pathak vs_amercian_express_bank_ltd_on_23_september_2015
Vinod pathak vs_amercian_express_bank_ltd_on_23_september_2015Vinod pathak vs_amercian_express_bank_ltd_on_23_september_2015
Vinod pathak vs_amercian_express_bank_ltd_on_23_september_2015AyottazDotCom
 
Powerpoint for New York State Bar Lecture
Powerpoint for New York State Bar LecturePowerpoint for New York State Bar Lecture
Powerpoint for New York State Bar LectureLaina Chan
 
Smt. Shalu Sachdeva vs. The ACIT Circle, Sriganganagar 471-2014
Smt. Shalu Sachdeva vs. The ACIT Circle, Sriganganagar 471-2014Smt. Shalu Sachdeva vs. The ACIT Circle, Sriganganagar 471-2014
Smt. Shalu Sachdeva vs. The ACIT Circle, Sriganganagar 471-2014suresh ojha
 
Slater v. commissioner
Slater v. commissionerSlater v. commissioner
Slater v. commissionerjrbampfield
 
Slater v. commissioner
Slater v. commissionerSlater v. commissioner
Slater v. commissionerjrbampfield
 
Pleadings in Civil Procedure Code.pptx
Pleadings in Civil Procedure Code.pptxPleadings in Civil Procedure Code.pptx
Pleadings in Civil Procedure Code.pptxRudra Pratap
 
Appeal format
Appeal formatAppeal format
Appeal formatscreaminc
 

Similar to Case law knit (20)

Omaxe reviews - srb15042014 cw14512013
Omaxe reviews -  srb15042014 cw14512013Omaxe reviews -  srb15042014 cw14512013
Omaxe reviews - srb15042014 cw14512013
 
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has no power to stay prosecution of taxpayers i...
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has no power to stay prosecution of taxpayers i...Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has no power to stay prosecution of taxpayers i...
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has no power to stay prosecution of taxpayers i...
 
Government employees maximum period of suspension is 3 months if there is no ...
Government employees maximum period of suspension is 3 months if there is no ...Government employees maximum period of suspension is 3 months if there is no ...
Government employees maximum period of suspension is 3 months if there is no ...
 
Indirect tax laws
Indirect tax lawsIndirect tax laws
Indirect tax laws
 
HC Appeal_LNS_2013_1_364
HC Appeal_LNS_2013_1_364HC Appeal_LNS_2013_1_364
HC Appeal_LNS_2013_1_364
 
Ipab procedures
Ipab proceduresIpab procedures
Ipab procedures
 
Anoopgarh K.V.Sah Samiti vs. ACIT, Sriganganagar
Anoopgarh K.V.Sah Samiti vs. ACIT, SriganganagarAnoopgarh K.V.Sah Samiti vs. ACIT, Sriganganagar
Anoopgarh K.V.Sah Samiti vs. ACIT, Sriganganagar
 
New York Empire and Triple H v Maswin binti Ripit and 5 Ors
New York Empire and Triple H v Maswin binti Ripit and 5 OrsNew York Empire and Triple H v Maswin binti Ripit and 5 Ors
New York Empire and Triple H v Maswin binti Ripit and 5 Ors
 
Biocon vs income tax on esop (Discounted ESOPs Are Not Taxable)
Biocon vs income tax on esop (Discounted ESOPs Are Not Taxable)Biocon vs income tax on esop (Discounted ESOPs Are Not Taxable)
Biocon vs income tax on esop (Discounted ESOPs Are Not Taxable)
 
Jammu kashmir ladakh hc order
Jammu kashmir ladakh hc orderJammu kashmir ladakh hc order
Jammu kashmir ladakh hc order
 
Vinod pathak vs_amercian_express_bank_ltd_on_23_september_2015
Vinod pathak vs_amercian_express_bank_ltd_on_23_september_2015Vinod pathak vs_amercian_express_bank_ltd_on_23_september_2015
Vinod pathak vs_amercian_express_bank_ltd_on_23_september_2015
 
Powerpoint for New York State Bar Lecture
Powerpoint for New York State Bar LecturePowerpoint for New York State Bar Lecture
Powerpoint for New York State Bar Lecture
 
Smt. Shalu Sachdeva vs. The ACIT Circle, Sriganganagar 471-2014
Smt. Shalu Sachdeva vs. The ACIT Circle, Sriganganagar 471-2014Smt. Shalu Sachdeva vs. The ACIT Circle, Sriganganagar 471-2014
Smt. Shalu Sachdeva vs. The ACIT Circle, Sriganganagar 471-2014
 
Slater v. commissioner
Slater v. commissionerSlater v. commissioner
Slater v. commissioner
 
Slater v. commissioner
Slater v. commissionerSlater v. commissioner
Slater v. commissioner
 
SRO can't refuse Regn.for lack of Prior Documents. HC order james joseph adhi...
SRO can't refuse Regn.for lack of Prior Documents. HC order james joseph adhi...SRO can't refuse Regn.for lack of Prior Documents. HC order james joseph adhi...
SRO can't refuse Regn.for lack of Prior Documents. HC order james joseph adhi...
 
Pleadings in Civil Procedure Code.pptx
Pleadings in Civil Procedure Code.pptxPleadings in Civil Procedure Code.pptx
Pleadings in Civil Procedure Code.pptx
 
Appeal format
Appeal formatAppeal format
Appeal format
 
Caveat
CaveatCaveat
Caveat
 
Cases on civil proc
Cases on civil procCases on civil proc
Cases on civil proc
 

Case law knit

  • 1. 1 2008 (230) E.L.T. 442 (Tri. - Del.) IN THE CESTAT, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI [COURT NO. III] S/Shri M. Veeraiyan, Member (T) and P.K. Das, Member (J) KNIT FOULDS P. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JALANDHAR Final Order No. 423/2008-EX(PB), dated 20-6-2008 in Appeal No. E/4290/2004 Demand - Limitation - Extended period, non invocation of - Clearances at two factories required to be disclosed to claim exemption under notification No. 8/99-C.E. - Assessee bona fidely disclosing only clearance from other unit under one notification and not clearances made under 5/99-C.E. - In absence of evidence about intention to evade duty, same attributed to lack of understanding about notification - Case of difference in interpretation - Extended period held not invocable, penalty also set aside - Section 11A and 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. [para 6] Appeal disposed off REPRESENTED BY :Shri Sandeep Malhotra, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Sanjay Kumar, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : M. Veeraiyan, Member (T) (for the Bench)]. - This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 257/CE/JAL/2004 dated 29-5-2004. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are as follows :- (a) The appellant has two units, one at Kapurthala and the other at Hoshiarpur. (b) The Kapurthala unit was manufacturing some products for which they have claimed value based exemption under Notification No. 5/99 and for other products, they availed the value based exemption under Notification No. 8/99. The unit at Hoshiarpur (the present appellant) manufactured products covered under Notification No. 8/99. (c) The appellant filed classification list in respect of their unit at Hoshiarpur wherein they have indicated the existence of their other unit at Kapurthala and also indicated the details of clearance of products covered under Notification No. 8/99 in respect of Kapurthala unit. However, they have not furnished the details and value of clearance of the products covered under Notification No. 5/99. (d) The original authority held that for the purpose of determining the eligibility to the exemption under Notification No. 5/99 in respect of Hoshiarpur unit, entire value of clearance of products of Kapurthala unit including those covered under Notification No. 5/99 should have been disclosed and taken into account and accordingly confirmed the demand of Rs. 79,911/- and imposed equal amount of penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) concurred with the above decision. 4. The learned advocate pleads that they had no intention to suppress the relevant details. They had disclosed the existence of the second unit. It was their stand that the value of clearances covered by another notification need not be included for the purpose of unit No. 2.
  • 2. 2 5. The learned DR submits that the clearance figures of both the products in respect of Kapurthala should have been disclosed and the failure to furnish is wilful and with intention to evade the excise duty. Therefore, he pleads for upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. We have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides. Learned advocate concedes that value of clearance of both the products relating to Kapurthala unit are relevant for the purpose of determining the exemption to the Hosiarpur unit. However non-furnishing of these details was not intentional. On perusal of the record, we find that there is no evidence to suggest intention to evade on the part of the appellant. We are inclined to accept that it was due to lack of understanding of the provisions of Notification. As it appears to be case of difference in interpretation, we hold that invocation of extended period for demanding duty is not justified. Imposition of penalty is also not warranted. 7. In the light of the above, we uphold the demand of duty involved within the normal period of limitation and we set aside the demand of the balance of duty involved. Penalty is set aside. 8. The appeal is disposed off with consequential relief as indicated above. (Dictated in the open Court) _______