Case Law Details
Abharan Jewellers Vs Commissioner Of Central Excise (CESTAT Bangalore)
CESTAT Bangalore held that with effect from 01.03.2005 branded jewellery are chargeable to excise duty @2%. However, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in absence of establishment of allegation of wilful suppression with intent to evade payment of duty.
Facts- The appellants in all these cases are engaged in manufacturing of articles of jewellery. With effect from 1-3-2005, excise duty was imposed, as a budgetary measure, on branded jewellery. The Notification No. 4/2005, dated 1-3-2005 prescribed duty at the rate of 2% on such branded jewellery.
Accordingly, demands was raised invoking extended period of limitation against the appellants with penalties being imposed under section 11AC.
Conclusion- Held that proviso to section 11A cannot be invoked when there is no evidence of wilful suppression with intent to evade duty is alleged by the revenue. Therefore, we hold that the goods cleared by the appellants are branded goods and they are liable to pay duty as per Rule 12AA of the Central Excise Rules. Since no allegation of wilful suppression with intent to evade payment of duty is established from the records, the demand is restricted to normal period. In view of the fact that suppression is not established, personal penalty on Shri Subhas M Kamath, Partner of M/s. Abharan Jewellers, Udupi; Shri Vinod Hayagriv, Managing Director of M/s. C Krishnaiah Chetty & Sons and Shri Pratap Kamath, CEO of M/s. C Krishnaiah Chetty & Sons, are also not sustainable and consequently set aside.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
