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 →

CCE & ST, Ludhiana Versus M/s. Om Steel Rolling Mills and others

2015 (10) TMI 1321 - CESTAT DELHI

Duty demand - Clandestine removal of goods - Held that:- Allegation of claim of excess burning loss is alleged in the show cause notice without any tangible evidence why the burning loss is not more than 2%. But Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh himself observed in the circular dated 13.11.2011 that burning loss in respect of hot re-rolling mill may vary from 1-2% to 6-7%. If the said circular would have been appreciated by the adjudicating authority, the adjudicating authority has dropped the dema .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

indal, Member (Judicial) , JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri V.P. Batra, AR- For the Respondent : Ms. Priyanka Goyal, Advocate ORDER Per Ashok Jindal : The Revenue has filed these appeals against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dropping the charge of clandestine removal against the respondents. 2. The facts of the case are that during the course of audit in the premises of M/s.Chopra Steel Strips and M/s.Jai Sidh Yogi Rolling Mills, Khanna, it was found that they were claimin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

re than 2%. Therefore, it was alleged that the burning loss in excess of 2% is not correct claimed by the respondents but they have cleared the goods clandestinely in the guise of showing excess burning loss. Therefore, the proceedings were initiated against the respondents. The respondent contested before the adjudicating authority who confirmed the demand of duty and interest and imposed penalty. Aggrieved with the said orders, the Revenue is before me. 3. Learned AR appeared on behalf of 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

loss may not be more than 2%. He further brings out in my notice the Circular dated 13.11.2011 issued by the Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh which shows that burning loss in respect of hot re-rolling mill may vary from 1-2% to 6-7% which directs not to issue show cause notice to the manufacturers. If show cause notice is required to be issued, there should be tangible evidence against the respondents. In this case, admittedly the show cause notices were issued to the respondents on the basis of .....

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