Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal

Vishnu Fragrance Pvt. Limited Vs. Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax and Central Excise

MANU/CE/0063/2021

17.06.2021

Excise

Unless the declaration filed by a manufacturer is found to be untrue or false, no demand for additional duty can be raised

The issue in present appeal is whether demand for differential duty can be raised on assumptions and presumptions under the Chewing and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machine (Capacity Determination & Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010, read with Section 3A of the Act.

The Appellant was engaged in the manufacture of chewing tobacco and was registered with the Excise Department and paying duty under the compounded levy scheme under Section 3A of the Act read with Chewing & Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machine (Capacity Determination & Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010 (CT Rules, 2010).

Under the scheme of CT Rules, 2010 read with Section 3A of the Act, unless the declaration filed by a manufacturer is found to be untrue or false, no demand for additional duty can be raised. In Rule 18(2) of the CT Rules, 2010 - if it is found that, goods have been manufactured or cleared from a unit which is not registered or the number of machine or the RSP of the pouches is contrary to the declaration, than the assessee can subject to demand of the duty and levy of penalty. Admittedly, in the facts of the present case, the Department have not found any case of mis-declaration or any other misgiving on the part of the appellant.

The whole case of Revenue is made out on the basis of assumptions and presumptions, based on the subsequent machine installed in the month of May, 2010, which is not permissible under the scheme of CT Rules, 2010. The order determining duty liability dated 26.04.2010 has not been appealed, and as such, the same is binding on the Department. The impugned order is set aside. Appeal allowed.

Tags : Demand Differential duty Legality

Share :