Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Himatsu Bimet Ltd and Others Versus Commissioners of Central Exicse, Customs and Service Tax-Rajkot

2015 (10) TMI 1241 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

Clandestine manufacture and removal of goods - Imposition of penalty - Held that:- It is observed that appellant requested for cross examination of the panch witnesses, which was not granted. As per Para 11.12 of the O.I.A. Dated 19.04.2011 a Report was called by the appellate authority from the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner in his letter Dated 06.04.2011 stated that the affidavits filed were as a result of afterthought. Statement of Shri Hitesh Pat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ority with the directions that all the statements mentioned in the findings of the first appellate Authority’s order dated 19.04.2011, and not mentioned in the Show Cause Notice, should be made available to the appellants for defending their case properly. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No : E/881-883/2011 - Order No. A/ 10915-10917/2015 - Dated:- 26-6-2015 - MR. H.K. THAKUR, J. For The Appellant (s) : Shri P.V Sheth, Advocate For The Respondent (s) : Shri G.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

A penalty of ₹ 2,00,000/- each has been imposed upon Shri Vinodbhai N. Saraf the Production Manager and Shri Chetan R. Dhruv, the Managing Director of the main appellant. 2. Shri P. V. Sheth, (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that the case has been made on the basis of statement Dated 31.05.2005 of Shri Vinodbhai N. Saraf the Production Manager of the main appellant, who has retracted the same by virtue of an affidavit Dated 01.06.2005. It was also his case that certa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

clandestine removal as some of the inputs were sent to job workers under job work challans. Learned Advocate also made the Bench go through ground 3 of there grounds of appeal that no cross examination of the panch witnesses was allowed. 3. Shri G. P. Thomas, (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that there was no need of giving any cross examination of the panch witnesses as they were appellants own employees. That weighment of stock and shortage was arrived at as per Panchnama during .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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