Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : AEG Power Solutions (India) Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Bangalore)
Appeal Number : Central Excise Appeal No. 20731 of 2016
Date of Judgement/Order : 19/04/2024
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

AEG Power Solutions (India) Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Bangalore)

The case of AEG Power Solutions (India) Private Limited versus the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore, brought before the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Bangalore, revolves around the misdeclaration of goods by the appellant, triggering an extended limitation period for adjudication.

A brief overview of the case reveals that AEG Power Solutions is involved in the manufacturing of various electrical products falling under specific chapters of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During an audit of the company’s records, it was discovered that AEG Power Solutions had wrongly availed exemption under Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 on certain items like Solar Inverters, Combiner Box / Array Guard, and PV Logs. These items were declared as part of Solar Power Generating Systems and cleared without payment of duty, against the provisions of the said notification.

The authorities issued a show-cause notice proposing denial of the exemption and demanding duty amounting to Rs.10,00,32,771/- for the period from December 2011 to June 2014, along with interest and penalty. Upon adjudication, the demand was confirmed, and AEG Power Solutions filed an appeal against this decision.

During the appeal, AEG Power Solutions argued that they had deposited the duty amount under protest in August 2014. They contended that the show-cause notice was barred by limitation as there was no willful suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty. They claimed to have availed the exemption under the belief that they were eligible, citing the judgment in Padmini Products vs. Collector [1989(43) ELT 195 (SC)].

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031