We also find that the Board vide its Service Tax instructions F.No.B..43/5/97-TRU, dated 2.7.97 held in para 3.5 that the expenses incurred on account of reimbursable expenses shall not form part of the value of the taxable services. To the same effect is another instruction being Service Tax F.No.B11/98-TRU, dated 7.10.98.
Even where a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority has discretion to impose a lesser penalty depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. The amount mentioned in Rule 173Q(1) of the 1944 Rules or Rule 25(1) of the 2002 Rules is the maximum, and not the minimum. The amount shall not exceed the duty determined; if it is more than rupees five thousand, or rupees five thousand if the duty determined is less than rupees five thousand.
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Nandeshwari Packaging (Cestat Ahemdabad)- Show cause notice issued on 9-7-2004 is barred by limitation, inasmuch as, the same stands issued after the period of six months from the date of search and even after completion of the investigations.
TR-6 challan is the most primary document evidencing payment of duty/tax. No doubt the TR-6 challan was not included in the list of specified documents. It was included by virtue of Notification No.28/2005-CE(NT) dated 7/6/2005. I find that this is an inadvertent omission, which was rectified by issuing the said Notification. This is so because any duty payment documents is related to, and based on TR-6 challan which is the source document. Similar view has been taken up by the Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of National Organics Chemical India Ltd., reported in 2004 (178) ELT 331 (Tri.). The appellant’s case is squarely covered by this judgement. I, therefore hold that disallowance of Cenvat credit is not correct. Consequently interest and penalty also do not sustain. Order-in-original is liable to be set aside.
The assessment under the Central Excise law in the name of partnership firm will virtually, for all purposes, be assessment of the partners of such firm who will be jointly and severally liable for the duty liability that was incurred during the currency of their partnership venture of manufacturing excisable goods. The decisions of this Tribunal taking a contrary view are no longer good law and will stand overruled.
The claim of the appellants for refund of Education Cess was based on the Notification bearing no. 56/2002, dated 14-11-2002, which provided for exemption to the goods specified in the First Schedule and the Second Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (other than the goods specified in Annexure I to the Notification), from so much of the duty of excise or additional duty of excise, as the case may be, leviable thereon under any of the three Acts, namely, The Central Excise Act, 1944; The Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957; and The Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act, 1978, as was equivalent to the amount of duty paid by the manufacturer of goods, other than the amount of duty paid by utilization of Cenvat credit.
