M/S. Irbaz Shoe Co. v. CCE & Central Tax

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(EX) 56 2018 (365) E.L.T. 263 M/S. Irbaz Shoe Co. v. CCE & Central Tax CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, 1944 --Recovery of duty--Clandestine removalNo export of goods----Since complete non-observance of procedure could not be said to be a mere procedural lapse and assessee was not registered under rule 9 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and had also not informed the department about clearance of the goods, therefore, Authorities were justified in invoking section 11A for recovery of excise duty--Assessee-company was manufacturer of leather shoe uppers and had sold leather shoe uppers which were removed without payment of duty and without filing returns. Revenue issued show cause notice stating that assessee had manufactured and cleared leather show uppers in contravention of various provisions of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Since assessee had not disclosed the fact of removal and sale of the said goods to the Department and that they did not approach the Department for guidance or clarification, it appeared that they have wilfully suppressed the fact of removal of said goods without payment of duty. *Held:* Conditions have been laid in the Notification to ensure that only such goods are exempted from duty which are actually exported. Assessee was not registered under rule 9 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and had also not informed the department about clearance of the goods. Complete non-observance of procedure could not be said to be a mere procedural lapse. The removal of goods came to light only after the visit of the officers to factory and perusal of documents. Authorities were justified in invoking section 11A for recovery of excise duty. Central Excise Act, 1944 Section 11A *REFERRED :* Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company v. Collector of C. Ex., Bombay 1995 (78) E.L.T. 401 (SC), Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras 1994 (74) E.L.T. 9 (SC) : 1995 TaxPub(EX) 643 (SC), Indian Aluminium Company Ltd. v. Thane Municipal Corporation 1991 (55) E.L.T. 454 (SC) : 1991 TaxPub(EX) 628 (SC), Padmini Products v. Collector of C. Ex. 1989 (43) E.L.T. 195 (SC) : 1989 TaxPub(EX) 857 (SC), Collector of Central Excise v. Chemphar Drugs & Liniments (1990) 184 ITR 224 (SC) : 1990 TaxPub(DT) 265 (SC), Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer and Others in (Civil Appeal No. 94 of 1964, dt. 2-4-1965) and M/s. Micro Chem Products (India) (P) Ltd. v. Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Commissioner of Central Excise 2017 (355) E.L.T. 45 (Mad.) : 2017 TaxPub(EX) 1026 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(EX) 56 2018 (365) E.L.T. 263

M/S. Irbaz Shoe Co. v. CCE & Central Tax

CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, 1944

--Recovery of duty--Clandestine removalNo export of goods----Since complete non-observance of procedure could not be said to be a mere procedural lapse and assessee was not registered under rule 9 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and had also not informed the department about clearance of the goods, therefore, Authorities were justified in invoking section 11A for recovery of excise duty--Assessee-company was manufacturer of leather shoe uppers and had sold leather shoe uppers which were removed without payment of duty and without filing returns. Revenue issued show cause notice stating that assessee had manufactured and cleared leather show uppers in contravention of various provisions of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Since assessee had not disclosed the fact of removal and sale of the said goods to the Department and that they did not approach the Department for guidance or clarification, it appeared that they have wilfully suppressed the fact of removal of said goods without payment of duty. Held: Conditions have been laid in the Notification to ensure that only such goods are exempted from duty which are actually exported. Assessee was not registered under rule 9 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and had also not informed the department about clearance of the goods. Complete non-observance of procedure could not be said to be a mere procedural lapse. The removal of goods came to light only after the visit of the officers to factory and perusal of documents. Authorities were justified in invoking section 11A for recovery of excise duty.

Central Excise Act, 1944 Section 11A

REFERRED : Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company v. Collector of C. Ex., Bombay 1995 (78) E.L.T. 401 (SC), Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras 1994 (74) E.L.T. 9 (SC) : 1995 TaxPub(EX) 643 (SC), Indian Aluminium Company Ltd. v. Thane Municipal Corporation 1991 (55) E.L.T. 454 (SC) : 1991 TaxPub(EX) 628 (SC), Padmini Products v. Collector of C. Ex. 1989 (43) E.L.T. 195 (SC) : 1989 TaxPub(EX) 857 (SC), Collector of Central Excise v. Chemphar Drugs & Liniments (1990) 184 ITR 224 (SC) : 1990 TaxPub(DT) 265 (SC), Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer and Others in (Civil Appeal No. 94 of 1964, dt. 2-4-1965) and M/s. Micro Chem Products (India) (P) Ltd. v. Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Commissioner of Central Excise 2017 (355) E.L.T. 45 (Mad.) : 2017 TaxPub(EX) 1026