Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2009 (8) TMI 927

..... RDER All the four appeals, three filed by the appellants and one filed by Revenue are being disposed off by a common order as they arise out of same impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals). Nobody has represented the appellants. Accordingly, we have heard the learned SDR Dr. M.K. Rajak, appearing for the Revenue. 2. As per facts on record, appellant M/s. Swagat Synthetics, a 100% EOU engaged in manufacture of processed man-made fabrics. Their factory was visited by Central Excise officers on 7/8-5-03 and in presence of Panchas, verification of the stock was done. It was noticed that physical stock of the fabric available in the unit was different than the recorded fabric in terms of quantity, weight and quality etc. Shri Bhomia, aut .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... 2 and Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant. (v) Imposed penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on Shri Jain, Partner of the appellant and Rs. 10,000/- on Shri Bhomia, Authorised Signatory of the appellant under Rule 26 of CER, 2002 and Section 112(b) of Customs Act, 1962. (vi) Imposed a fine of Rs. 1 lakh in lieu of confiscation of seized goods. 4. Being aggrieved with the above order, appellant filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who held against them on merit. However, in respect of rate of duty, he held that the appellants are required to pay duty under main Section 3(1) of CEA, 1944 in respect of payment of duty under proviso to Section 3(1) of CEA, 1944. He, accordingly, reduced duty to Rs. 2,23,902/- along with reduction of .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... ot correct. All the facts conclusively established the guilt of the appellant. Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere in the findings of clandestine removal of the fabric against the said appellant and their liability to penalty. Similarly, the liability of Shri M.J. Jain, partner and of Shri Bhomia, authorized signatory to the penal action taken by the lower authority, cannot be interfered with. 6. As regards the quantum of duty required to be confirmed against M/s. Swagat Synthetics, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has granted benefit to the appellant by observing that their liability to pay duty arose under main Section 3(1) of CEA, 1944. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Jaipur Golden Transport Co. Pvt. L .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||