Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (1) TMI 267 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2016 (1) TMI 267 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - 2016 (332) E.L.T. 166 (Tri. - Del.) - Duty demand - Clandestine removal of goods - Shortage of goods found - Revenue contends that job work register and challans were not reliable as facts of removal to job work was not corroborated by the party during verification - Held that:- There is no such Committee or review/authorization. In 2009 by moving miscellaneous application, the Revenue wanted to regularize the original appeal filed by the Commissioner as if .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t been filed in terms of the amended provisions of Section 35 F and Section 35 E. The impugned order has not been reviewed for a decision to file an appeal by the Committee of Commissioners as per the provisions applicable during the time - no reason to interfere with the order of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on merits. - Decided against Revenue. - Excise Appeal No. 2621/2006-EX(DB) - Final Order No. A/53102/2015-EX(DB) - Dated:- 22-9-2015 - Sulekha Beevi CS, Member (J) And B. Ravichandran, Me .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of ₹ 17,90,958/- was found. This shortage was worked out based on the opening balance, dispatch, receipt, job work transactions, work in progress, etc. Proceedings were initiated against the respondent alleging clandestine removal of finished goods found short. The Original Authority confirmed the demand and imposed equal penalty. On appeal, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 29.11.2006 set aside the original order and allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

not corroborated by the party during verification. The investigation proved that the job work challans and entries in the work register were fake and could not be relied upon to show the materials found short were actually sent for job work. The only plausible explanation for shortage is clandestine removal of these goods. 3. When the matter came up for hearing, ld. Counsel for the respondent contested the maintainability of the appeal itself. He stated that the impugned order was passed on 25. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eal and as such, the appeal is not maintainable. On merits, ld. Counsel for the respondent contended that well before the issue of show cause notice itself, they have explained in detail about the shortage found during the visit of the officers vide their letter dated 31.05.2002. Ld. Counsel further pleaded that the Directors of the Company have repeatedly stated in their submission that there is no shortage as mentioned in Panchnama dated 19.04.2002 and have in fact filed re-conciliation 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

cross-examine the trucks' owners and the original authority did not give any findings on this. 4. The ld. Counsel further submitted that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had examined the facts of the case in detail and concluded that other than the alleged shortage, as indicated in the Panchnama, there is no corroboration whatsoever to establish the charge of clandestine removal of the excisable goods. 5. Ld. AR reiterated the grounds of appeal. Regarding the maintainability of the appeal, he .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

aintainability from the party when the application for condonation of delay was considered favourably. Therefore, the misc. application is infructuous and does not call for any order otherwise. In these terms, the misc. application was disposed of. 6. Ld. AR submits that since the appeal has been taken on record after condonation of delay, the question of maintainability of such appeal cannot be agitated again by the respondent. On merits, he pleaded that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in allo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tion. In 2009 by moving miscellaneous application, the Revenue wanted to regularize the original appeal filed by the Commissioner as if authorized by the Committee of Commissioners which took decision on 12.02.2009 only. We find that the misc. application filed by the Revenue has not been categorically allowed by this Tribunal. In fact, it was disposed of with an observation that such application is infructuous and does not call for any order. The reason being that at the time of consideration o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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