Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of C.E. Meerut-II Versus M/s. Prince gutka ltd. & ors.

2015 (7) TMI 964 - SUPREME COURT

Clandestine removal of goods - Undervaluation of goods - second show cause notice on the same cause of action - Held that:- On the statement of respondent No.5 given earlier, the adjudicating authority had dropped the proceedings accepting the explanation furnished. In view thereof, the CESTAT has held that there could not have been second show cause notice on the same cause of action. In this behalf we do not find any error in the order passed by the CESTAT. - Adjudicating authority had stu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

no repetition of the material and the evidence mentioned in the show cause notice by the respondent No.1 it was not necessary to discuss the same on that account and this course was adopted by the adjudicating authority, and rightly so, to avoid repetition. Thus, insofar as the issue of under-valuation is concerned, we find substance in these appeals and to that extent order of the CESTAT is contrary to law and is accordingly set aside. - Decided partly in favour of Revenue. - CIVIL APPEAL NO.70 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cause notice was issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Excise to the respondent No.1 on two grounds, namely,(i) there was clandestine removal of goods to avoid excise duty and (ii) the value of the goods which were removed was shown much lesser than the price at which those goods were sold to the customers and in this manner it was undervalued resulting into lesser payment of excise duty. The adjudicating authority by its final order dated 09.05.2000 confirmed the demand of ₹ 12,71,177/- f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ption to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 5,00,000/-. This order-in-original passed by the Commissioner was challenged in appeal before the CESTAT. The CESTAT by the impugned order dated 04.03.2005 has allowed both the appeals filed by the respondent No.1 and the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. This is how the Revenue is before this Court by way of these appeals challenging the correctness of the order passed by the CESTAT. Insofar as the issue of clandestine r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

aside the order of the adjudicating authority stating that the adjudicating authority has not recorded any findings or discussed any evidence in support of the confirmation of demand. Mr. Arjit Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has taken us through the order passed by the adjudicating authority on the aforesaid issue. Following discussion is contained in the order of the adjudicating authority:- "The second issue for determination before me is of under valuation of goods .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

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

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

Go to Mobile Version