Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (3) TMI 1091

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nts do not have any prima facie case and the action of the Commissioner (Appeals) in directing pre-deposit of substantial amount of duty and penalty is not incorrect - since Commissioner (Appeals) has not gone into the merits in appeal, who has examined the details from stay angle, in the interest of justice, we set aside the stay order subject to the condition that the appellant No.1 deposits 50% of the duty confirmed, 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 t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... alna, M/s. Adinath Steel Re-Rolling Mill and M/s. Saraswati Steel Industries. Proprietors of the said companies admitted to having purchased the MS ingots in cash from appellant No. 1 without payment of duty. 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-in-original dated 30/05/2013. In the said o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... akhs 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 the appeals of all the appellants in view of the non-compliance of the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 5. The appellants aggrieved by the said order, has come in appeal before us. 6. Heard both the sides. We find that Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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 Section 35F, that normally, the appellants are expected to deposit the duty demanded or the penalty levied before filing the appeals and only in particular case, where the appellate authority is of the opinion that the deposit of duty demanded or penalty levied would cause undue hardship to such person, the said authority may dispense with such deposit subject to such condition as he may deem fit to impose so as to safeguard the interest of Revenue. We have also gone thr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ant No.2 also agreed with the statements made by other three purchasers, besides appellant No.3. It is a well settled principle that whatever has been admitted need not be proved and this has been held by the honble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Systems and Components Pvt. Ltd. 2004 (165) ELT 136 (SC). 10. We have also gone through the order-in-original. We find that the 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 cl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates