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. Bindlas Duplex Ltd. Versus C.C.E. & S.T. Meerut-I

Duty demand - Clandestine removal of goods - demand on alleged shortage/ excess quantity of finished goods and inputs - Held that:- Even the excess found stock of finished goods i.e. quoted Duplex boards were laying in the factory at the time of visit of the Preventive Officers. It is also not the case of the Department that the shortage quantity of goods has been removed from the factory clandestinely, in view of the fact that neither in the SCN nor in the orders passed by the lower authorities .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ant is liable to pay the redemption fine and the penalty imposed by the authorities below. However considering the gravity of the case, I am of the view that the ends of justice will be met if the penalty imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules is reduced to ₹ 20,000/- and penalty imposed under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules is reduced to ₹ 25,000 - redemption fine can also be reduced to ₹ 67,441/- i.e. equal to the Central Excise duty payable on removal of impugn .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s and inputs, confirmed in the adjudication order along with penalty, has been upheld. 1.1 The brief facts of the case are as under: 1.2 The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Kraft Paper and Duplex Board quoted/ unquoted, the final products, falling under chapter 48 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant avails cenvat credit in respect of the inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products. The factory of the appellant was visited by the Central Prevent .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

it, statements were recorded from the appellant. The appellant voluntarily deposited the duty attributable to the shortage of Kraft paper and the cenvatable raw materials and intimated the Department regarding such deposit. 1.3 Subsequent to deposit of the duty amount, the Department initiated Show Cause Proceedings against the appellant, which culminated in the adjudication order dated 15.02.2011, wherein stock of quoted Duplex boards found in excess, was confiscated and option was given for re .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

been imposed under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for contravention of Rule 9(5) of the said rules. Being aggrieved with the adjudication order, the appellant had preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), which was disposed of vide the impugned order dated 25.04.2012, wherein the order of the adjudicating authority towards imposition redemption fine and confirmation of duty demand was upheld, but the amount of penalty imposed under Rule 25(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

clandestinely removed from the factory since the same are available in the factory itself. It is his submission that since the production supervisor has not maintained the records timely, the discrepancy in the finished goods and the raw material was noticed. He further submits that since the shortage is very insignificant, in comparison to the material handed by the appellant, the quantum of redemption fine and the penalty imposed by the lower authority is not in conformity with the legal provi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

her of the authorities below, hence the same is not tenable at his juncture. He further submits that since the shortage/ excess has been admitted by the appellant, and the duty amount attributable to such quantity of the finished goods have been paid suo moto, the confiscation of excess found goods, and imposition of penalty in the impugned order is legal and proper. 4. Heard the Ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the records. 5. I find from the available records that there is no mention .....

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