Just a moment...

Report
ReportReport
Welcome to TaxTMI

We're migrating from taxmanagementindia.com to taxtmi.com and wish to make this transition convenient for you. We welcome your feedback and suggestions. Please report any errors you encounter so we can address them promptly.

Bars
Logo TaxTMI
>
×

By creating an account you can:

Report an Error
Type of Error :
Please tell us about the error :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home /

2005 (11) TMI 414

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ule 57 I (1) (iii) of the Central Excise Rules. Further, he confirmed a differential duty of Rs. 1,16,344/- against them under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules read with Section 11A(2) and the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He imposed penalty equal to the demand of duty under Rule 57I (4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Further he imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,16,344/- under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. Interest under Section 11AB and under Rule 57 I (5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was demanded. The appellants have strongly challenged the impugned order. Hence, they have come before this Tribunal for relief. 3. Shri S.R.M. Murthy, ld. Consultant appeared for the appellants and Shri K.S. R....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Central Excise duty of Rs. 1.16 lakhs being the differential duty payable on extra charges recovered from the buyers which the appellants had paid before issuance of show cause notice. The respondent, therefore, has already admitted that some duty was paid on the D.G. Sets involved in the impugned transactions. Surprisingly these transactions were also part of the confirmation of duty on account of denial of Modvat credit. (iv) The very payment of initial duty on the D.G. sets has not been disputed by the department and this proves that the D.G. sets were assembled in the factory and that it was only the question of recovery of additional duty on account of some additional amounts which the appellants received from the consignee. Therefor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....loyees of the appellants' company. In his statement dated 4-1-1999 Shri M.P. Yadav has referred to transactions in respect of sale of D.G. Sets which has been taken as a basis to conclude there is no manufacturing activity in the factory. Such references made by both Shri M.P. Yadav, and Shri V. R Kulkarni and Shri S.D. Salve are only about the transaction dealing with diversion of goods cleared from the factory in cases where the original consignee refused to take delivery of the goods despatched to him as per original order. There are also instances where invoice raised to parties without despatching the goods. These are instances where invoices are issued to facilitate to get financial assistance from Banks and other financial institutio....