TAJMAHAL TOBACCO COMPANY PVT. LTD. Vs. C.C.E.
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
R.Periasami, Member (T) -
(1.)SINCE , the issue involved is in narrow compass, after disposing the stay application the main appeal itself is taken up for disposal.
(2.)THE short point involved in this case is the Department issued the show cause notice demanding service tax of Rs. 58,965/ - on GTA outward transport service under reverse charge. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the adjudicating authority. Hence, the present appeal.
Heard both sides.
(3.)THE Ld. Advocate for the appellant submits that they are manufacturers of chewing tobacco. He submits that DGCEI had investigated and registered offence case for clandestine removal of finished goods and issued show cause notice dated 06.05.2011, demanding duty of Rs. 50,15,025/ - and interest of Rs. 8,16,913/ - for the period April 2007 to April 2011. They have paid the entire excise duty demanded along with interest as per the Final Order No. 15/2012 dated 2.7.2012 passed by the Hon'ble Settlement Commission. He submits that the issue stands settled against the show cause notice issued by DGCEI for the said period. Subsequently, the department issued the present show cause notice dated 06.06.2012, on the assumption/presumption that the appellants not paid the service tax on the alleged quantity of removal of the finished goods, which was covered in the show cause notice and the same has already been settled by the Settlement commission. Further, he submits that the show cause notice has not brought out on what basis the service tax amount quantified. There is no work sheet showing the details. He further submits that in reply to the show cause notice they have clearly submitted before the adjudicating authority that for the period 2007 -08 and 2008 -09, they have not incurred any GTA outward charges as the place of removal was the factory gate and the transportation was done by the buyer from their factory gate. For the second period 2009 -10 and 2010 -11, he submits that they have not incurred any transportation charges as there was no separate freight amount involved and the departments case on clandestine removal was on account of excess quantity removed on the same vehicle for which they have already discharged the excise duty and service tax amount on the outward freight. DGCEI has demanded duty only excess goods removed clandestinely.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.