Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (9) TMI 565 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2015 (9) TMI 565 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - 2015 (327) E.L.T. 346 (Tri. - Del.) - Duty evasion - Whether or not the appellant collected in the name of excise duty any amount from their buyers which they failed to deposit to the Government - Held that:- The plea of the appellant is that in all inclusive price purchase order they have only charged concessional rate of excise duty which they have deposited with the Government. However, the facts of the case as revealed from the records indicate that 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

t at all tenable. The single clearance document having different factual details in original and triplicate cannot be considered as procedural lapse. The idea behind such act is to represent the price and Central Excise duty differently to the buyer. This is further corroborated by the fact that the appellant were also supplying oil filters to M/s Escorts Ltd. (CTD Division, Faridabad) who were availing Modvat credit and in that case, the appellant raise invoices in one set only giving all parti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, we find the same was in the factory premises and the confiscation was apparently ordered on the grounds of incomplete particulars in the records and discrepancy between the copies of invoice. We find since the goods are still in the factory premises and the documentation were required to be completed at the time of clearances, there is no sufficient cause to order the confiscation of said goods. Accordingly, we set aside that portion of impugned order regarding confiscation of goods. - Decided .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, the Central Excise officers conducted certain verifications in the factory premises of the appellant. On completion of the investigation, the show cause notice dated 2/2/99 was issued. The notice demanded Central Excise duty of ₹ 5,21,360/- in terms of Section 11A and 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Notice also proposed confiscation of goods valued ₹ 1,50,840/- and a tempo van valued at ₹ 2,50,000/- apart from penalties. The issue involved is that the appellant has been .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the Original Authority vide order-in-original dated 09/3/2001 the demand was confirmed. The confiscation of seized goods and tempo were ordered with a redemption fines and penalty of ₹ 50,000/- was imposed on the appellant. A separate penalty was also imposed on the partner. On appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 14/2/2002 upheld the said order-in-original except for the confiscation of the tempo and penalty on the partner. On further appeal by the appellant to 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

in the tempo liable for confiscation and imposed redemption fines and penalty of ₹ 50,000/-. 2. On further appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 19/09/2006 upheld the order-in-original except for confiscation of tempo. 3. The appellant is before us against the said Commissioner (Appeals) order. The learned Counsel for the appellant contested the applicability of Section 11D to their case. He pleaded that Section 11D will be applicable only when any amount is collected by 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

ve not left the factory and before completion of formalities the seizure of the goods and tempo with the presumption that duty is not discharged or accounts are not properly maintained is not correct. 4. Learned AR relied on the findings by lower Authorities. He specifically drew our attention to contracted prices indicated in the purchase orders by the buyers for the year 1995-1996 and 1996-1997. The contracted prices for oil filters was ₹ 42/- per piece + the Central Excise duty at full .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

te of excise duty the triplicate and quatriplicate showing higher assessable value with concessional excise duty while matching the contract value full price, the appellant collected extra amount in the name of duty and benefited. 5. Heard both the sides and examined the appeal records. The main point for decision is whether or not the appellant collected in the name of excise duty any amount from their buyers which they failed to deposit to the Government. The plea of the appellant is that in a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tra amount in the name of Central Excise duty form their buyers. In this regard reliance can be placed on the facts corroborated by the Chief Manager of Escorts Ltd. (buyers) in his statement dated 28/8/1998. He categorically stated that they were paying unit rate + Central Excise duty @ 13%. The preparation of invoices in two sets with different details of assessable value and Central Excise duty for the same clearance was admitted by Shri D.K. Mattoo, Partner of the appellant firm. These detai .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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