GST Helpdesk Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
What's New Case Laws Highlights Articles News Forum Short Notes Statutory TMI SMS More ...
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (4) TMI 691 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2015 (4) TMI 691 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - 2015 (323) E.L.T. 587 (Tri. - Del.) - Demand of duty - Clandestine removal of goods - Clearance of goods without accountal and payment of duty - Confiscation of goods - Held that:- The appellant manufacture industrial and decorative laminates and there is no dispute that more than 90% of the production is supplied to Indian Railways either directly or through dealers and through M/s.Shaktri Sales and M/s.P.A. Sales. There is no dispute that supply to Railway .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the laminates supplied by CPPL to Indian Railways either directly or through M/s.P.A. Sales and M/s.Shakti Sales and the quantity manufactured by them as per the RG-I Register. According to the appellant, the balance quantity had been procured by them from several dealers through M/s.Aar Em Plywood and Sunmica and M/s. Ratnakar Enterprises.

However, all the dealers from whom the laminates are claimed to have been purchased, have on inquiry stated that they had supplied the lamina .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s.P.A.Sales and M/s. Shakti Sales to Indian Railways during the period of dispute, which is in excess of the quantity whose production was recorded by them during that period in the RG-I Register, had actually been manufactured by them without accountal and had been cleared without payment of duty under the guise of trading activity. - No infirmity in impugned order - Decided against assessee. - Excise Appeals Nos. E/902 to 905/2005-EX(DB) with E/Misc.1015,1018,1017 and 1016/2011 - Final Order N .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eading No.3920.37 of the Central Excise Tariff. Shri Manoj Ratnakar Jain is Director of the appellant company. M/s. Aar Em Plywood and Sunmica is a trading firm whose proprietor is Shri Manoj Ratnakar Jain. M/s. Ratnakar Enterprises is a partnership firm owned by Shri Manoj Ratnakar Jain and his brother-in-law. M/s. Shakti Sales and P.A. Sales are the dealers through whom M/s. CPPL were selling the laminates to Indian Railways. The bulk of the industrial and decorative laminates manufactured by .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

supplied by them to Indian Railways either directly or through their two dealers M/s. Shakti Sales and M/s.P.A. Sales in terms of the contract terms, laminates supplied were to be of 3mm.thickness and the same were to be inspected prior to delivery by the RITES or DGS&D in the factory of the CPPL. It was found that quantity of laminates being supplied by CPPL either directly or through M/s. P.A Sales or M/s. Shakti Sales during the above mentioned period of dispute was far in excess of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s or trading invoices, while the goods manufactured by them had been cleared under gate passes. Inquiry was made with the dealers from whom M/s. Ratnakar Enterprises and M/s. Aar Em Plywood and Sunmica claimed to have purchased the laminates and all the dealers while confirming that they had supplied the laminates, stated that the laminates supplied by them were of 0.6 mm to 1.5 mm. thickness. Since the laminates supplied to Railways by CPPL either directly or through M/s.Shakti Sales and M/s. P .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

estigating Officers were of the view that the difference between quantity of laminates supplied to Indian Railways during the above mentioned period of dispute and the quantity which was manufactured by CPPL as per their records, had been clandestinely removed by them without any accountal and the same had been cleared without payment of duty by showing the same as trading activity. It is on this basis that the Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 30.04.2004 confirmed the duty demand of  .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s under Rule 209 A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as under:- (1) Shri Manoj Ratnakar, Director ₹ 10 Lakhs (2) M/s.Ratnakar Enterprises ₹ 8 Lakhs (3) M/s.Aar EM Plywood and Sunmica Rs.8 Lakhs (4) Shri Prem Chand Goel, Partner Of M/s.P.A. Sales Corporation ₹ 5 Lakhs (5) Shri Ashok Kumar Goel, Partner in M/s.Shakti Sales Corporation Rs.5 Lakhs (6)M/s.P.A. Sales ₹ 8 Lakhs (7)M/s.Shakti Sales Corporation ₹ 8 Lakhs 1.2 Against the above order of the Commissioner, these .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

have been issued to the appellants well in time but none representing the Appellant had appeared. In view of this, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 21 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, the matter is being decided ex parte after hearing ld. Departmental Representative. 3. Heard Shri Ranjan Khanna, ld. Departmental Representative, who pleaded that more than 95% of the sales of the industrial and decorative laminates manufactured by CPPL were to Indian Railways either directly or through t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o Railways, that the duty has been demanded on the difference between the quantity of laminates supplied during the period of dispute to Railways and the quantity whose production has been recorded by the appellant in their RG-1 register, that according to the appellant, this difference represents the quantity which had been procured by them as trading activity through M/s.Aar Em Plywood and Sunmica and Ratnakar Enterprises from some dealers, that all the dealers from whom the laminates are clai .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

llans / trading invoices, had been manufactured by CPPL and had been cleared without payment of duty and that in view of this, duty demand has been correctly confirmed against CPPL and penalty has been correctly imposed on them and other co-noticees and as such, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 4. We have considered the submissions of the ld. DR and have gone through the records of this case. 5. The appellant manufacture industrial and decorative laminates and there is no dispute tha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Latest Notifications:

    Dated      Category

20-7-2017 Cus (NT)

18-7-2017 IT

18-7-2017 CE (NT)

18-7-2017 CE

18-7-2017 GST CESS Rate

15-7-2017 Kerala SGST

14-7-2017 Andhra Pradesh SGST

14-7-2017 Cus (NT)

14-7-2017 Cus

13-7-2017 Co. Law

13-7-2017 Co. Law

13-7-2017 ADD

13-7-2017 ADD

12-7-2017 Jammu & Kashmir SGST

12-7-2017 Gujarat SGST

12-7-2017 Gujarat SGST

12-7-2017 CGST Rate

12-7-2017 UTGST Rate

12-7-2017 UTGST Rate

12-7-2017 IGST Rate

More Notifications


Latest Circulars:

19-7-2017 Income Tax

18-7-2017 Customs

17-7-2017 Customs

14-7-2017 Income Tax

13-7-2017 Central Excise

13-7-2017 Customs

13-7-2017 Central Excise

13-7-2017 Customs

7-7-2017 Income Tax

7-7-2017 Goods and Services Tax

More Circulars



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version