Case Law Details
Biswajit Saha Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Kolkata)
CESTAT Kolkata held that appellant were under the bonafide belief that processes undertaken by them doesn’t amount to manufacture and accordingly, they cleared goods to raw material supplier on collection of job charges only. Accordingly, extended period of limitation not invocable.
Facts- M/s. Jamuna Enterprise (The Appellant) was engaged by M/s. Bidisha Enterprise for conversion of raw materials such as MS Round, Bright bars etc. for job work, as per the specification provided by them. For the processing work carried out by the Appellant, they were paid labour charges by M/s. Bidisha Enterprise.
An investigation was carried out at the business premises of M/s. Bidisha Enterprise on 15.06.2010 by the Anti Evasion wing of the Central Excise department and it was seen that they were not registered under the Central Excise Act, 1944 until November 2007. M/s. Bidisha Enterprises took the Central Excise registration only in December 2007.
On the basis of the investigation carried out at the premises of M/s. Bidisha Enterprise, the Appellant was issued a show cause notice dated 25.03.2011, demanding central excise duty Rs.64,50,631/-on the goods, namely ‘parts of motor vehicles’, manufactured and cleared to M/s. Bidisha Enterprise during the period 2006-07 and April 2007 to November 2007 by invoking extended period of limitation. The duty was demanded from the Appellant on the ground that since M/s. Bidisha Enterprise was not registered with Central Excise department, it was the duty of the Appellant to pay excise duty on the goods manufactured and cleared by them.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
