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

2015 (10) TMI 1241 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

2015 (10) TMI 1241 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD - TMI - 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d to be remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

longwith interest and equal amount of penalty. 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 Dat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tain challan copies to argue that there was no 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 s .....

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