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 →

Gopikishan Rameshwar Jajoo And Gajlaxmi Steel (Jalna) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Aurangabad

2015 (3) TMI 1091 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Duty demand - Clandestine removal of goods - recovery of certain incriminating documents including certain diaries, five pendrives and one laptop - Held that:- Appellants have not denied the charges against them except asking for cross-examination of some or the other person. We also noted that the case is not based upon the statements but documentary evidence and the statements have only explained the details in those documentary evidence. Even all the three appellants have admitted to the clan .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

med, appellant No.2 deposits 25% of the penalty imposed and appellant No.3 also deposits 25% of the penalty, of ₹ 8,99,310/- within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order and also present themselves with the production of the said deposits before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 07/05/2015. After noting the compliance, Commissioner (Appeals) will fix the date for personal hearing and thereafter decide the appeals finally. We make it clear that the Commissioner (Appeals) .....

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 manufacturers were manufacturing MS bars/angles and clearing the same clandestinely without payment of duty through one M/s. Santosh Steel Traders operating from his residence in Jalna, the said premises were searched which resulted in the recovery of certain incriminating documents including certain diaries, five pendrives and one laptop. 2. Statements of the concerned persons were recorded and printouts were taken of the information contained in the pendrives. The concerned person explained .....

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. Appellant No.2 is the Director of appellant No.1. He also in his statement explained the contents of the diaries/pendrives and admitted to having cleared the goods clandestinely without payment of duty to various units including the appellant No.3 (which appears to be their own concern). Appellant No. 2 also agreed to the contents of the statements made by other purchasers referred to earlier. 3. Based upon the investigations, a demand notice was issued which was adjudicated vide the order-i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

6(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Further, a penalty of ₹ 16 lakhs was imposed on appellant No.3. 4. The present appellants filed appeals before Commissioner (Appeals) who asked the appellants to deposit the entire amount of duty and penalties. The appellants filed appeals before this Tribunal. This Tribunal vide order No. A/231-235/14/SMB/C-IV dated 30/01/2014 set aside the order and directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to pass order on the stay application after granting reasonable .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

377; 8,99,310/- instead of ₹ 16 lakhs as was in the earlier order. The appellants did not deposit the said amount and again a personal hearing was fixed on 26/06/2014. The appellants did not appear for the said hearing nor requested for adjournment. However, they filed a modification application dated 24/06/2014 which was received on the date of personal hearing. Keeping in view the submissions in the Miscellaneous Order and also the records of the case, Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed th .....

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 respect of goods which are not under the control of Central Excise authorities or any penalty levied under this Act, the person desirous of appealing against such decision or order shall, pending the appeal, deposit with the adjudicating authority the duty demanded or the penalty levied: Provided that where in any particular case, the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal is of opinion that the deposit of duty demanded or penalty levied would cause undue hardship to such person, th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

m the date of its filing. Explanation. For the purposes of this section duty demanded shall include, (i) amount determined under section 11D; (ii) amount of erroneous Cenvat credit taken; (iii) amount payable under rule 57CC of Central Excise Rules, 1944; (iv) amount payable under rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 or Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 or Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004; (v) interest payable under the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder. 7. It will be seen from the above Secti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

also the conduct of the three appellants during the original proceedings as also the conduct before the appellate authority during the stay proceedings in both the occasions. We find that the appellants have not appeared before the first appellate authority when the matter was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals). Still, Commissioner (Appeals) examined the matter in detail and in respect of appellant No.3 reduced the requirement of pre-deposit substantially. It is also noted that another .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ents of the same are explained by Mr. Rathi, proprietor of M/s. Santosh Steel Traders as also Shri Balkishan Radheshyam Malpani, who was working as an accountant. The said details were presented to the appellant No. 2 who is the Director of appellant No.1 and he also explained the contents and admitted in his statements that he has clandestinely cleared the goods to various buyers and in his statement he indicated the exact quantum and other details. 9. Appellant No.2 also agreed with the statem .....

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