Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

C.C.E. Meerut-II Versus M/s Siddhant Chemicals

2015 (11) TMI 598 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Duty demand - Clandestine removal of goods - Lack of evidence - Held that:- After proper analysis of the entire case matter, the Commissioner (Appeals) has passed a reasoned and speaking order holding that the method of verification of stock by the Central Excise Officers was not proper and since the stock in process was not actually verified and the quantity declared by the proprietor of the Respondent company as stock in process was accepted by the officers of the Department, the duty liabilit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in the Adjudication Order has been confirmed solely based on the statement of the proprietor who admitted that the stocks of the disputed goods were 25 Ton approximately and no proper accounts were maintained, the demand cannot be confirmed for mere non-maintenance of records and more particularly, in absence of any proof regarding clandestine removal of such goods. - Decided against Revenue. - Excise Cross Application No. E/Cross/78/2010 & Excise Appeal No. E/2970/2009 -Ex[SM] - Final Order No .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

some of the goods were found in excess/ short as compared to the stock particulars entered in the statutory records. As a result of such investigations, Show Cause Notice was issued to the Respondent, which culminated in the Adjudication Order dated 31.10.2008, wherein Central Excise duty of ₹ 7,25,405/- on shortage quantity of Menthol 97% and ₹ 8,14,218/- on the shortage quantity of DMO 20% were confirmed and equal amount of penalty imposed on the Respondent. In appeal against the 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

Against the impugned order, the Revenue has filed appeal before this Tribunal. 2. In the grounds of appeal, annexed to the appeal memorandum, the Revenue has contested the impugned order on the ground that no stock of Menthol 97% and DMO 20% were available on the date of visit by the officers of the Department and as such the duty demand on account of such shortage quantity is required to be paid by the Respondent. The revenue further contended that there was not stock of disputed goods in proc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version