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. Sumeet Silk Mills Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Sura

2015 (10) TMI 1544 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

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 the demand of duty in respect of the said invoices. The shrinkage as claimed o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 the case, in brief, are that the appellant are engaged in the processing (dyeing .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

posing 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 appellant Company and otherwise, the adjudication order was upheld. 3. The Learned Cons .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed 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. Mumbai). He submits that appellant deposited an amount of ₹ 20 Lakhs dur .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the Central Excise .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o 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 mentioned in the register A/1 were cleared under Central Excise invoices on payment o .....

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 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 at the time of various statements of the Director. The plea of the appellant, in .....

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