Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2010 (10) TMI 131

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was sufficient enough for the authorities to conclude as to the ultimate quantity of Portland cement which could have been produced from such excess quantity, which were not noted in the stock register, was well justified and we do not find any illegality or irregularity in such a conclusion drawn by the authorities for the levy of duty and the demand of duty imposed - 2998 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 7-10-2010 - F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla and N. Kirubakaran, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri K. Jayachandran, Counsel, for the Appellant. Shri S. Udayakumar Sr. Panel Counsel for Customs and Central Excise, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.]. The appellant seeks to challenge the order of the first respond .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 27,802/- as well as penalty and interest alleging that the appellant was not entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 24 of 1991 for its wrong availment, that the shortage of clinkers must have resulted in the production of cement clandestinely removed without payment of duty, that suppression of receipt of limestone and used in the manufacture of cement resulted in clandestine removal apart from clandestine manufacture of hollow blocks and its removal without payment of duty. The appellant submitted its reply. Thereafter, the Order-in-Original No. 15 of 1996 was passed on31-10-96demanding a sum of Rs. 23,04,994/- as duty apart from imposition of penalty of equal amount. The appellant preferred an appeal before the first respondent and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... learned standing counsel for the respondents, however, contended that the shortage of clinkers at the time of inspection was noted based on the stock register, that such inspection was carried on in the presence of the senior officials, who did not raise any protest at the time of stock taking and that the subsequent letter after three days after the inspection by the appellant was rightly rejected by the respondents. The learned standing counsel would further contend that apart from the shortage of clinkers, the shortage of coke breeze as well as the difference in the quantity of limestone as per the records supported the conclusion of the respondents about the clandestine removal of excess quantity of cement manufactured by the appellant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... linkers. That apart, the unloading of coke breeze to the extent of 1445.325 metric tons during the period from8-4-93to13-4-93, as against the quantity of 232.2 metric tons disclosed in Form IV register, only shows that such irregular maintenance of stock in the appellant s manufacturing premises was a usual phenomenon. That apart, when the difference in the quantity of limestone was noted, it also showed the excess quantity of removal of limestone by the appellant. The only explanation was that such excess removal of limestone was shown to satisfy the State Government authorities or otherwise, there was every likelihood of cancellation of their permission. Again, when the said defect was noted with reference to the entries found in the dail .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ll as the first respondent can be justified cannot be accepted. The inference drawn by the second respondent based on shortage of clinkers and the excess quantity of limestone quarried during the relevant period was sufficient enough for the authorities to conclude as to the ultimate quantity of Portland cement which could have been produced from such excess quantity, which were not noted in the stock register, was well justified and we do not find any illegality or irregularity in such a conclusion drawn by the authorities for the levy of duty and the demand of duty imposed. Inasmuch as the first respondent has chosen to delete the penalty, that itself was a grace shown to the appellant while passing the order impugned in this appeal. 7. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates