GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (10) TMI 1544 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

2015 (10) TMI 1544 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD - 2015 (329) E.L.T. 593 (Tri. - Ahmd.) - Duty demand - Clandestine removal of goods - Held that:- Central Excise officers visited appellant’s factory on 10.07.2003 and the appellant produced the copies of the invoices by 04.08.2008 before the Commissioner (Appeals). We agree with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and such invoices, can not be accepted at this belated stage. It is also noted that the appellant have not submitted any reconciliation 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

to pay the entire amount of duty alongwith interest and penalty of 25% of duty within 30days from the date of communication of this order, as per Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Appeal disposed of. - Appeal No. : E/1360/2008 - ORDER No. A/10595/2015 - Dated:- 12-5-2015 - Mr. P.K. Das and Mr. H.K. Thakur, JJ. For The Appellant : Shri Mukund Chauhan, Chartered Accountant For The Respondent : Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Surat Per : Mr. P.K. Das; The relevant facts of 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

pplied the grey fabrics. 2. A show cause notice dated 10.11.2004 was issued proposing demand of Central Excise duty amounting to ₹ 31,06,075/- alongwith interest and to impose penalty. The adjudicating authority modified the demand of duty and reduced to ₹ 17,39,400/- alongwith interest and imposed penalty of equal amount of duty. It has also imposed penalties on the co-noticees. By the impugned order, Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty imposed on the Director of the appellan .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ty indicated in File A-1 before the Commissioner (Appeals) who has not considered the documents. Regarding demand of duty on the basis of other Files, it is his submission that the adjudicating authority modified the demand on the basis of value of uniform shrinkages, as contended by the appellant. Both the lower authorities below have not extended the benefit of cum-duty price. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mahavir Plastics vs. CCE, Mumbai - 2010 (255) ELT 241 (Tri. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cise clerk, programme supervisor and the Director of the appellant Company, who admitted clandestine removal of the goods and the same are corroborated with the Files recovered from the appellant. He further submits that none of the noticees had retracted statements at any point of time. He submits that cum-duty benefit should not be extended as they have not issued invoices, the statement of Shri Rajkumar Somani, Director of the appellant Company is corroborated with this fact. 5. After hearing .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that appellant produced copies of invoices before the Commissioner (Appeals) to establish that the goods in question were cleared on payment of duty. They have also contended before the Commissioner (Appeals) that adjudicating authority had not considered wastage of goods due to shrinkage. The Commissioner (Appeals) has given detailed finding on this issue, as reproduced below:- 5. The appellant have in their letter dated 04.8.2008 reproduced certain copies of invoices to show that goods mentio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tement of Shri Tagariwala has been seen by the Director Shri Somani and admitted on 08.6.200r. First of all the documents now produced are of period after the search which can be easily manipulated. Secondly, the evidence on records show and establish that the goods were dispatched before the date of search on 10.7.2004. Thirdly, the appellant had sufficient opportunity to put up their claim. If the claim is indeed true, the appellant ought to explain what prevented them from placing the facts 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

t. Shrinkages of 10% was taken as claimed and admitted by the appellants Directors and employees. If indeed the shrinkages are higher, it was open to the appellant to demonstrate to the investigator the actual wastages. Nothing of this sort has been done. The plea of the appellants for recalculating the quantity (based on higher shrinkages) fail. 6. We find that the Central Excise officers visited appellant s factory on 10.07.2003 and the appellant produced the copies of the invoices by 04.08.20 .....

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