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 →

M/s Maral Overseas Ltd. Versus CC, Indore

2015 (12) TMI 1485 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

100% EOU - procurement of goods without payment of duty - The goods were received in the appellants factory and at the time of weigment while re-warehousing found to be short - penalty under Section 114A - Held that:- there is no allegation either in the show cause notice or in the order of the first appellate authority that there was any diversion of the goods after their import duty free. The number of bales received in the factory were the same as shown in the Bill of Entry and they were foun .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ned in the said letter CBEC.

The entire quantity of bales of cotton imported was received in the factory intact and there is neither any allegation of diversion nor any evidence to that effect. Even the supplier reimbursed the amount towards shortage noticed in weight which also supports the view that there was no diversion of the duty free goods. Thus none of the conditions of the exemption Notification No. 53/1977-Cus. are violated. In these circumstances the impugned demand is tot .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ual mandatory penalty under Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 was also imposed. 2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under: The appellant is a 100% EOU. It procured raw material without payment of duty under Notification No. 53/1997-CU dated 3.6.1997. The appellant imported cotton on the basis of procurement certificate issued by the designate authority of Customs & Central Excise based on which the Custom authorities at the port allowed clearance thereof duty free. The goods were received 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

ellant has contended that there was no pilferage of the goods imported and the difference in the weight of cotton normally arises as a result of variation in the moisture contained at the time of supply and at the time of receipt of goods in the factory and that realising the same even the CBEC had issued a Circular No. 462/41/93-CU dated 15.4.83 stating that variation up to 1% may be condoned. 4. Ld. DR on the other hand stated that the goods having been short received the duty is recoverable. .....

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