{"id":239627,"date":"2020-11-25T11:25:52","date_gmt":"2020-11-25T05:55:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=239627"},"modified":"2020-12-11T12:38:47","modified_gmt":"2020-12-11T07:08:47","slug":"cestat-calculation-of-revenue-found-to-be-erroneous-and-high-pitched-tribunal-allows-appeal-setting-aside-penalty-s-11ac-read-with-r-25-of-central-excise-rules","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/25\/cestat-calculation-of-revenue-found-to-be-erroneous-and-high-pitched-tribunal-allows-appeal-setting-aside-penalty-s-11ac-read-with-r-25-of-central-excise-rules\/","title":{"rendered":"CESTAT | Calculation of Revenue found to be erroneous and high pitched; Tribunal allows appeal setting aside penalty S. 11AC read with R. 25 of Central Excise Rules"},"content":{"rendered":"

Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT):<\/strong> Anil Choudhary (Judicial Member), allowed an appeal which was filed aggrieved by the judgment and order of Commissioner (Appeals).<\/p>\n

The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of MCBs (Miniature Circuit Breaker) and various other electrical accessories, which were dutiable falling under CETH 85362030. The appellant was availing SSI exemption in respect of goods manufactured on their own account or brand and at the same time, was paying duty on the goods bearing brand name of other persons. The other appellant was buyer of goods. On the basis of intelligence that the appellant has been indulging in evasion of duty, a search was conducted where certain documents were resumed. Statements of about 16 persons were recorded, which had been relied upon in the show cause notice. On the basis of scrutiny of the documents and statements of various persons, the Revenue concluded that duty was worked out including cess at Rs 1,22,00,622, invoking the extended period of limitation with a proposal to appropriate Rs.50 lakhs deposited during the investigation stage. Further, penalty was also proposed.<\/p>\n

Initially, the appellant had approached the Settlement Commission, admitting duty liability of Rs 6,47,685. Before the Settlement Commission, the Department itself had revised the duty demand to Rs 49,50,711. However, the Settlement Commission recorded the finding that the evidence before it was not sufficient to come to any logical conclusion and sent the case to the Adjudicating Authority. The Adjudicating Authority further, on contest, confirmed a reduced demand of Rs 34,94,797, which was further reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals) to Rs 34,06,203, recording calculation errors. The Adjudicating Authority also imposed penalty of Rs 34,94,797 under Section 11 AC of the ACT read with Rule 25. Being aggrieved, the appellant again preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who recorded the finding that the appellant have by and large accepted that they have been indulged in duty evasion but have raised certain issues – the calculation of turnover and duty evaded. They had mainly disputed the estimation of quantity. Commissioner (Appeals) re-calculated and aggrieved by which the instant appeal was filed. The counsel for the appellant, Mr Rajesh Chhibber urged that the Commissioner (Appeals) have erred in observing and reconciling the figures. Further, the rejection of the grounds of the appellant by the Commissioner (Appeals) particularly estimation of turn over by Revenue beyond the installed capacity was bad. Further, the learned Commissioner in spite of taking notice of a wide guess work down by the department has erred in not setting aside the duty demand along with a penalty for the alleged clandestine removal. It was further urged that in spite of allegation of the department of having cleared huge quantity and value of finished goods not a single consignment was intercepted outside the factory being transported without proper document either of raw materials or finished goods.<\/p>\n

The Tribunal observed that it was evident on the face of the record that the show cause notice was issued by way of wide guess work wherein duty demand of Rs 1.22 crores was made approximately. Further, they found that Revenue had not worked out the source of raw material for manufacture of the huge quantity alleged to be clandestinely cleared, nor flow back of the proceeds of the alleged clandestine removal. Further, no adverse quantitative ratio has been found out nor any adverse ratio with respect to consumption of electricity was found. Admittedly, the total electricity bill for the two months in dispute is about Rs 20,100 or Rs 10,000 per month approximately. With such meagre consumption of power and taking in view the installed capacity, as well as the idle time due to power failure or break down of machine from time to time, the estimated production and confirming of duty by Revenue is found to be erroneous and high pitched.<\/p>\n

The Tribunal allowing the appeal held that penalty under Section 11AC read with Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules should be set aside as case of Revenue was not proved.[Prakash Switchgear v. CCE, 2020 SCC OnLine CESTAT 321<\/b><\/a>, decided on 12-11-2020]<\/p>\n

\n

Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has put this story together<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Anil Choudhary (Judicial Member), allowed an appeal which was filed aggrieved by the judgment <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":201689,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,11],"tags":[8991,44197,29785,2531],"class_list":["post-239627","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-tribunals_commissions_regulatorybodies","tag-appeal","tag-central-excise-rules","tag-law","tag-Revenue"],"yoast_head":"\nCESTAT | Calculation of Revenue found to be erroneous and high pitched; Tribunal allows appeal setting aside penalty S. 11AC read with R. 25 of Central Excise Rules | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/25\/cestat-calculation-of-revenue-found-to-be-erroneous-and-high-pitched-tribunal-allows-appeal-setting-aside-penalty-s-11ac-read-with-r-25-of-central-excise-rules\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"CESTAT | Calculation of Revenue found to be erroneous and high pitched; Tribunal allows appeal setting aside penalty S. 11AC read with R. 25 of Central Excise Rules\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Anil Choudhary (Judicial Member), allowed an appeal which was filed aggrieved by the judgment\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/25\/cestat-calculation-of-revenue-found-to-be-erroneous-and-high-pitched-tribunal-allows-appeal-setting-aside-penalty-s-11ac-read-with-r-25-of-central-excise-rules\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-11-25T05:55:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2020-12-11T07:08:47+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/25\/cestat-calculation-of-revenue-found-to-be-erroneous-and-high-pitched-tribunal-allows-appeal-setting-aside-penalty-s-11ac-read-with-r-25-of-central-excise-rules\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/25\/cestat-calculation-of-revenue-found-to-be-erroneous-and-high-pitched-tribunal-allows-appeal-setting-aside-penalty-s-11ac-read-with-r-25-of-central-excise-rules\/\",\"name\":\"CESTAT | Calculation of Revenue found to be erroneous and high pitched; Tribunal allows appeal setting aside penalty S. 11AC read with R. 25 of Central Excise Rules | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/25\/cestat-calculation-of-revenue-found-to-be-erroneous-and-high-pitched-tribunal-allows-appeal-setting-aside-penalty-s-11ac-read-with-r-25-of-central-excise-rules\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/25\/cestat-calculation-of-revenue-found-to-be-erroneous-and-high-pitched-tribunal-allows-appeal-setting-aside-penalty-s-11ac-read-with-r-25-of-central-excise-rules\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-11-25T05:55:52+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-12-11T07:08:47+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/25\/cestat-calculation-of-revenue-found-to-be-erroneous-and-high-pitched-tribunal-allows-appeal-setting-aside-penalty-s-11ac-read-with-r-25-of-central-excise-rules\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/25\/cestat-calculation-of-revenue-found-to-be-erroneous-and-high-pitched-tribunal-allows-appeal-setting-aside-penalty-s-11ac-read-with-r-25-of-central-excise-rules\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/25\/cestat-calculation-of-revenue-found-to-be-erroneous-and-high-pitched-tribunal-allows-appeal-setting-aside-penalty-s-11ac-read-with-r-25-of-central-excise-rules\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/25\/cestat-calculation-of-revenue-found-to-be-erroneous-and-high-pitched-tribunal-allows-appeal-setting-aside-penalty-s-11ac-read-with-r-25-of-central-excise-rules\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"CESTAT | Calculation of Revenue found to be erroneous and high pitched; Tribunal allows appeal setting aside penalty S. 11AC read with R. 25 of Central Excise Rules\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"CESTAT | Calculation of Revenue found to be erroneous and high pitched; Tribunal allows appeal setting aside penalty S. 11AC read with R. 25 of Central Excise Rules | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/25\/cestat-calculation-of-revenue-found-to-be-erroneous-and-high-pitched-tribunal-allows-appeal-setting-aside-penalty-s-11ac-read-with-r-25-of-central-excise-rules\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"CESTAT | Calculation of Revenue found to be erroneous and high pitched; Tribunal allows appeal setting aside penalty S. 11AC read with R. 25 of Central Excise Rules","og_description":"Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Anil Choudhary (Judicial Member), allowed an appeal which was filed aggrieved by the judgment","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/25\/cestat-calculation-of-revenue-found-to-be-erroneous-and-high-pitched-tribunal-allows-appeal-setting-aside-penalty-s-11ac-read-with-r-25-of-central-excise-rules\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2020-11-25T05:55:52+00:00","article_modified_time":"2020-12-11T07:08:47+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/25\/cestat-calculation-of-revenue-found-to-be-erroneous-and-high-pitched-tribunal-allows-appeal-setting-aside-penalty-s-11ac-read-with-r-25-of-central-excise-rules\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/25\/cestat-calculation-of-revenue-found-to-be-erroneous-and-high-pitched-tribunal-allows-appeal-setting-aside-penalty-s-11ac-read-with-r-25-of-central-excise-rules\/","name":"CESTAT | Calculation of Revenue found to be erroneous and high pitched; Tribunal allows appeal setting aside penalty S. 11AC read with R. 25 of Central Excise Rules | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/25\/cestat-calculation-of-revenue-found-to-be-erroneous-and-high-pitched-tribunal-allows-appeal-setting-aside-penalty-s-11ac-read-with-r-25-of-central-excise-rules\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/25\/cestat-calculation-of-revenue-found-to-be-erroneous-and-high-pitched-tribunal-allows-appeal-setting-aside-penalty-s-11ac-read-with-r-25-of-central-excise-rules\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg","datePublished":"2020-11-25T05:55:52+00:00","dateModified":"2020-12-11T07:08:47+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/25\/cestat-calculation-of-revenue-found-to-be-erroneous-and-high-pitched-tribunal-allows-appeal-setting-aside-penalty-s-11ac-read-with-r-25-of-central-excise-rules\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/25\/cestat-calculation-of-revenue-found-to-be-erroneous-and-high-pitched-tribunal-allows-appeal-setting-aside-penalty-s-11ac-read-with-r-25-of-central-excise-rules\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/25\/cestat-calculation-of-revenue-found-to-be-erroneous-and-high-pitched-tribunal-allows-appeal-setting-aside-penalty-s-11ac-read-with-r-25-of-central-excise-rules\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/25\/cestat-calculation-of-revenue-found-to-be-erroneous-and-high-pitched-tribunal-allows-appeal-setting-aside-penalty-s-11ac-read-with-r-25-of-central-excise-rules\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"CESTAT | Calculation of Revenue found to be erroneous and high pitched; Tribunal allows appeal setting aside penalty S. 11AC read with R. 25 of Central Excise Rules"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":238280,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/10\/30\/cestat-demand-of-interest-to-be-calculated-from-the-date-of-determination-of-due-amount-till-actual-date-of-payment-of-duty-tribunal-allows-appeal\/","url_meta":{"origin":239627,"position":0},"title":"CESTAT | Demand of interest to be calculated from the date of determination of due amount till actual date of payment of duty; Tribunal allows appeal","author":"Editor","date":"October 30, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Anil Choudhary (Judicial Member), allowed an appeal which was filed aggrieved by the judgment and order given by Commissioner (Appeals). The issue before the Tribunal was whether the demand of interest was to be calculated from the date of clearance of goods\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":246352,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/01\/duty\/","url_meta":{"origin":239627,"position":1},"title":"CESTAT | No intention to evade duty, penalty set aside; Tribunal partly allows appeal","author":"Editor","date":"April 1, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) partly allowed an appeal where the issue was whether the appellant was entitled to Cenvat credit of Service Tax paid on Outward Transportation Service for clearance of Excisable Goods by the appellant. The appellant raised the sale invoice\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":269164,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/07\/05\/can-tcs-collected-from-sale-of-scrap-be-included-in-the-assessable-value-for-charging-excise-duty-cestat-answers\/","url_meta":{"origin":239627,"position":2},"title":"Can TCS collected from sale of scrap be included in the assessable value for charging Excise Duty? CESTAT answers","author":"Editor","date":"July 5, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): The coram of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member) allowed an appeal holding that TCS collected from sale of scrap cannot be included in the assessable value for charging excise duty which was filed by the aggrieved on the dismissal\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/CESTATNew-Logo.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/CESTATNew-Logo.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/CESTATNew-Logo.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/CESTATNew-Logo.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/CESTATNew-Logo.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":242626,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/22\/cestat-whether-there-can-be-a-claim-of-exclusion-of-the-freight-amount-from-arriving-at-the-assessable-value-for-the-purpose-of-payment-of-central-excise-duty-tribunal-explains\/","url_meta":{"origin":239627,"position":3},"title":"CESTAT | Whether there can be a claim of exclusion of the freight amount from arriving at the assessable value for the purpose of payment of central excise duty; Tribunal explains","author":"Editor","date":"January 22, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): The Coram of P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) allowed an appeal filed by the assessee against the demand of Central Excise duty of Rs 5,25,70,268 along with equal penalty and applicable interest confirmed by the Commissioner, Central\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":242487,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/20\/cestat-demand-of-reversal-cenvat-credit-interest-and-imposition-of-penalty-set-aside-tribunal-allows-appeal-in-matter-of-central-excise-removal-of-goods-at-concessional-rate-of-duty-for-manufact\/","url_meta":{"origin":239627,"position":4},"title":"CESTAT | Demand of reversal Cenvat Credit, Interest, and Imposition of penalty set aside; Tribunal allows appeal in matter of Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rule 2001","author":"Editor","date":"January 20, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): The Coram of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member) allowed an appeal which was filed against in demand of reversal Cenvat Credit, Interest, and Imposition of penalty. The issue involved in appeal was that whether Rule 6 (3) (b) and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":205137,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/14\/exemption-from-payment-of-excise-duty-must-be-followed-by-a-reversal-of-6-of-the-value-of-exempted-goods-or-maintenance-of-separate-account-of-inputs-and-credits\/","url_meta":{"origin":239627,"position":5},"title":"Exemption from payment of excise duty must be followed by a reversal of 6% of the value of exempted goods or maintenance of separate account of inputs and credits","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 14, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): A Division bench comprising of C.L. Mahar (Technical) and Ajay Sharma (Judicial), Members. upheld the order of Excise Commissioner directing reversal of Cenvat credit against a manufacturer for non-compliance of Cenvat Credit Rules. The instant appeal arises against an order of the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/239627","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=239627"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/239627\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/201689"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=239627"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=239627"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=239627"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}