CUSTOM EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
MS. ARCHANA WADHWA, Rakesh Kumar, JJ.
Surya Polypack (P.) Ltd. -Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-I -Respondent
Order Nos. FO/53827-53828/2014-Ex(Br) Excise Appeal Nos. 877,876 of 2012-Ex-(DB) Excise Misc. Application Nos. 59572,59573 of 2013-Ex(DB)
Decided On : 30-09-2014
Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member - Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of same impugned order passed by Commissioner of Central Excise vide which he has confirmed the demand of excise including education cess amounting to Rs.1,77,08,029/- along with confirmation of interest and imposition of penalty of identical amount under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In addition, penalty of Rs.50,000/- stand imposed upon Shri Satyabrat Swain, General Manager of the appellant company. In addition, penalty of Rs.5000/- also stand imposed on the manufacturing company under Rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
2. As per facts on record, M/s. Surya Polypack Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as appellant) is engaged in the manufacture of multi layer poly film printed as well as non-printed chargeable to Central Excise duty under sub-heading No. 3921 90 99 of the Central Excise Tariff, in their unit located at Integrated Industrial Estate, SIDCUL Hardwar, Uttarakhand. In terms of notification No. 50/2003 dated 10.6.2003, the goods specified in the first and second schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, other than those specified in the annexure I to the notification and manufactured in the industrial area specified in annexure II to the notification are exempt from whole of the duty of excise as also from the whole of additional duty of excise, leviable under Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 as also under the Additional duty of excise (Textile and Textile Articles), Act, 1978. Inasmuch as the appellants manufacturing unit is located in the area specified in annexure II to the notification and inasmuch as the goods manufactured by the appellant were not ousted from the benefit of said notification in terms of annexure I to the notification, the appellants availed the benefit of said notification with effect from 21.5.06, inasmuch as the first clearance was effected from the appellants factory on 21.5.06.
3. Said notification, apart from granting the exemption to the new units, which came up in the specified area, also extended exemption to the existing units, which undertook substantial extension to the extent of more than 25% of the installed capacity. Initially the notification did not prescribe filing of any declaration with the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities. However, with effect from 5.11.03, said notification was amended vide notification No. 76/2003 dated 5.11.2003 and the following two conditions were added.
"Provided that the exemption contained in this notification shall apply subject to the following conditions, namely:-
(i) The manufacturer who intends to avail of the exemption under this notification shall exercise his option in writing before effecting the first clearance and such option shall be effective from the date of exercise of the option and shall not be withdrawn during the remaining part of the financial year;
(ii) The manufacturer shall, while exercising the option under condition (i), inform in writing to the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise or Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be, with a copy to the Superintendent of Central Excise giving the following particulars, namely:-
(a) Name and address of the manufacturer;
(b) Location/locations of factory/factories;
(c) Description of inputs used in manufacture of specified goods;
(d) Description of the specified goods produced;
(e) Date on which option under this Notification has been exercised;
(f) The manufacturer may, for the current financial year, submit his option in writing on or before the 30th day of November, 2003."
4. Even after the amendment to the notification, the appellant did not file any declaration with their Central Excise authorities as regards their option to avail the benefit of the area based exemption notification. At this stage, we note that the condition introduced on 5.11.03 required assesse
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.