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

2015 (10) TMI 1128 - CESTAT CHENNAI

2015 (10) TMI 1128 - CESTAT CHENNAI - 2015 (329) E.L.T. 868 (Tri. - Chennai) - Duty demand - Imposition of penalty under Rule 9(2) read with Rule 173Q - Clubbing of clearances - Held that:- There was no material on record to suggest that fictitious units were in reality manufacturers. Those were neither registered with the Excise Authorities nor machinery were installed by them to carry out manufacture. There is no evidence of any purchase of raw material, consumable or packing material nor paym .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing is accordingly confirmed and adjudication on this score sustains with levy of duty in adjudication untouched by this order subject to recomputation due to valuation defect caused by Revenue.

There was no allegation as to under-valuation in the show-cause notice. There is also no evidence on record from Revenue to prove that there was under-valuation of the clearances made. Therefore, adjudication on such count of arbitrary valuation fails and value disclosed by appellant shall be .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he appellant and adjudication was made levying duty demand of ₹ 5,85,262/- as well as penalty of ₹ 5,00,000/- under Rule 9(2) read with Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. So also penalty of ₹ 10,000/- was imposed on different persons involved in the breach of law alleged by Revenue. But those persons are not in appeal. Therefore, present appeal relates to manufacturer-appellant only. 2.1 Learned counsel for appellant submitted that three fictitious concerns were not c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tice did not make any allegation of under-valuation of the clearances made by appellant, the Adjudicating authority re-assessed the clearances making over-valuation thereof adopting trading value which is inconceivable. In absence of such allegation in the show-cause notice Adjudication is bad and ill founded as well as fails to stand. 2.3 So far as penalty is concerned, learned counsel submits that even if there is clubbing then imposition of penalty to the extent of ₹ 5,00,000/- is unwar .....

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