Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2014 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (9) TMI 411 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURTRectification of mistake - Whether while disposing of the application (ROM) moved by the appellant the mistake pointed out in the application (ROM) was found debatable and requires re-appreciation of entire facts on records but the same was rejected on the ground that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction as the scope of the ROM is too limited. The order of the learned Tribunal dated 8.7.2005 is prima facie erroneous in law - Held that:- On a perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the excess stock were found during the course of raid/surprise visit by the Department Officers. No satisfactory explanation was given. The Tribunal held that appellant had manufactured and clandestinely removed 278.274 metric tonnes of MTIL marked lead ingots to GPCL without payment of duty. So, the demand of duty on the goods was sustained. The goods were removed in contravention of Rules 9(1), 52A, 53, 173G and 173F with obvious intent to evade the payment of duty, both Sections 11AB (for interest on duty) and Section 11AC (for penalty) stood attracted. So, the MTIL are liable to pay the duty with interest chargeable under Section 11AB and 11AC. Further, the Tribunal observed that MTIL marked ingots 278.274 metric tonnes were not manufactured by by GPCL, but raw material produced by them. The appellant could not show that duty of excise had been paid on the goods - Tribunal has already given the substantial relief to the appellant. There is no scope to grant any further relief either in the name of rectification or otherwise. Hence, we uphold the the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal. - Decided against assessee.
|