LexM/S. AMCO BATTERIES LTD., BANGALORE versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
f A MIS. AMCO BATTERIES LTD., BANGALORE --== v. , COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE FEBRUARY 26, 2003 B [M.B. SHAH AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944; Section 3, Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11-A and Rule 57A/Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; Sub-Heading c 7802.00/Exemption Notification No. 186184-CF dated 1-8-1984 and its amended Notification No.246187-CE dated 20-11-1987: Assessee mamifactures batteries from ingots-Ingots also ma;1ufactured by job-workers from waste/scrap-Levying of excise duty invoking extended period of limitation-Held: since entire movement of waste/scrap to job workers D till receipt of ingots manufactured by them is properly recorded no wilful suppression by the assessee--Bonafide belief that waste/scrap re-used in making ingots exempt from such levy--Hence provision of extended period for the purpose of levying excise duty not attracted-Matters remitted to the Adjudicating Authority to modify demand-Directions issued. E Appellant-assessee had been manufacturing electric batteries from lead ingots as main input raw material which was purchased from market as well as getting the same manufactured from the job workers. Revenue levied excise duty on scrap/waste so used for manufacturing of lead ingots, though scrap was exempted under notification/amended notification. F Assessee was unsuccessful before the Tribunal. Hence the present appeal. ..,,,,, It was contended for the assessee that since there was no wilful suppression by the assessee, provision of extended period under proviso to sub-section I of Section 11-A of the Central Excise and Salt Act for the purpose of levying of excise duty ought not to be invoked. G Partly allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. There is no material on record from which it could be inferred or established that duty of excise was not levied or paid by reason of any fraud, collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts H or contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or the rules made 342 \.. .. - AMCO BATTERIES LTD., BANGALORE v. C.C.E. [SHAH, J.] 343 thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty. The entire movement A of waste and scrap to the job workers and receipt of ingots manufactured by the job workers is recorded in regular books of accounts and proper documentation is maintained in the form of delivery challan. It was a bona fide belief on the part of the assessee that scrap and waste, which was recovered-while manufactiiring batteries, was exempt from levy of excise duty. Further, assessee was entitled to get benefit of MODV AT Scheme. B Thus there was no wilful suppression on the part of the assessee which would empower the authorities to invoke extended period of limitation under proviso to Section IIA(I) of the Central Excise Act. (346-F, G; 347-A, BJ Mis. Padmini Products v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, [1989) 4 sec 275, relied on. 1.2. The matters are remitted to the Adjudicating Authority to modify the demand by confining it to the period of six months prior to c issue of show cause notice. (348-D) D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 5941-5942 of 1999.' From the Judgment and Order dated 11.6.1999 of the Central Excise, Customs and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in A. Nos. El E 2181-2182/92-BI in F.0. Nos. 606-607 of 1999-BI. V. Lakshmikumaran, T. Viswanathan and V. Balachandran, for the Appellant. Raju Ramachandran, Additional Solicitor General, N.K. Bajpai, p Ms. Smita Inna and B.K. Prasad for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHAH, J. It is apparent that in taxation matters, amendments, clarifications, exemption notifications or their withdrawal play an important G role in increasing litigation. Repeatedly, it is stated that law and procedure thereunder is required to be streamlined and simplified, yet clarifications, amendments and notifications are issued creating confusion and leaving Judges and Lawyers to search for their exact meaning. In such a state of affairs, in some cases, it is difficult to draw inference of fraud, wilful eoncealment or suppression of facts so as to attract penal consequences. H 344 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) 2 S.C.R. A Short facts of the case are that appellant is engaged in manufacture of lead acid electric storage batteries and parts thereof falling under Tariff Heading 85.07 in its two factories, o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.