Appeal No. E/688/2008, (Arising out of OIA-KKS/120/DAMAN/2008 dt 03/03/2008 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax (Appeals) -DAMAN). Case: Guardian Plasticote Limited Vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Customs And Service Tax-Daman. CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)

Case NumberAppeal No. E/688/2008, (Arising out of OIA-KKS/120/DAMAN/2008 dt 03/03/2008 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax (Appeals) -DAMAN)
CounselFor Appellant: Shri S J Vyas, Advocate and For Respondents: Shri S K Shukla, Authorised Representative
JudgesDr D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) and Shri Ashok K Arya, Member (Technical)
IssueCustoms Law
Judgement DateMay 19, 2017
CourtCEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)

Order:

Dr D.M. Misra, (West Zonal Bench Ahmedabad)

  1. This is an appeal filed againt OIA-KKS/120/DAMAN/2008 dt 03/03/2008 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax (Appeals) DAMAN.

  2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of LDPE coated Paper Boards falling under CH 48.90 of CETA, 1984. The appellant, on the basis of audit observations, was issued with a show cause notice on 09.3.2006 alleging non-payment of duty of Rs. 49,947/- on the extra amount of Rs 3,08,047/- collected from the customers during the period from 1.6.2004 to 30.9.2005 by issuing six debit notes. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed with equal amount of penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who in turn, rejected their appeal. Hence, the present appeal.

  3. The Ld Advocate, Shri S J Vyas, for the appellant submits that debit notes were not issued in connection with the manufacture and sale of finished goods to the party concerned. It is his contention that debit note Nos. 20/3.9.2003, 40/15.12.2004 and 41/31.12.2003 have been issued for the reason that even though orders for supply finished goods were agreed to be placed by M/s Hindustan Lever Ltd and M/s Sethiya Soaps Pvt Ltd, but no such orders were placed for which they have incurred expenses towards cylinder charges, accordingly issued debit notes for recovery of the same and it was specifically mentioned in the respective debit note reflecting the cost of the procurement of cylinder. Similarly, in relation to debit notes 8/2004 and 14/2004 issued to Silvasa Flexible Printing, the cost of cylinder was recovered for rejection of the order. In relation to debit note 41/31.1.2005 for Rs 2,06,102/- Ld. Advocate submits that finished goods cleared on payment of duty was later rejected by M/s Hindustan Lever Ltd. Therefore, the total value of Rs 5,71,616/- was credited to their account and later debit note was issued for recovery of 50% of the value relating to various cost incurred by them. Therefore, the debit notes are not for recovery of extra amount over and above the value of goods, hence cannot be chargeable to duty.

  4. Ld AR for the Revenue reiterated the finding of the Ld Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that the appellant had not...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT