Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2017 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (1) TMI 24 - HC - Central ExciseClandestine removal - Penalty - Rule 25 of the CER, 2002 - Principles of natural justice - Held that: - It is undeniable that the petitioner did not pay duty in Delhi where the goods were actually manufactured. It is not as if duty was not paid only in respect of Kathua unit for which benefits and credits were sought from Kathua. In fact, there were 411 DG sets working out to over 20% of the quantity produced. What is more, to compound the non-payment of duty, the petitioner committed a further violation in claiming that the goods were cleared from Kathua when they were not, and proceeded to draw the revenues and then also sought CENVAT credit - It is an attempt to supplement the concession as it were during the course of the proceedings - an indication that it somehow sought to tide-over and close the dispute even though there is no common moot point or the possibility of a moot point with the revenue - Petition dismissed.
|