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 →

Hinduja Foundries Limited Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise Chennai-1

2016 (1) TMI 478 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Clandestine removal of goods - physical shortage of finished products - reliance on statements made by the officers of the appellant company - Held that:- the Tribunal had arrived at its conclusions, without properly appreciating the evidence available on record relating to the shortages and excesses found in the records of the appellant, including the internal audit. The actual audit practice of the appellant had not been considered by the appellant. The explanation submitted by the appellant, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

- Matter remanded back. - C.M.A.Nos.1616 and 1617 of 2007 - Dated:- 10-12-2015 - MR. M.JAICHANDREN AND MRS. S.VIMALA, JJ For the Petitioner : Mr. C. Natarajan for Mr. N. Inbarajan For the Respondent : Mr. Rajnish Pathiyil JUDGMENT M. Jaichandren, J The above appeals had been filed against the final order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai, made in Final Order No.1261 and 1262 of 2006, dated 11.12.2006, under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Ac .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

handling shortages or the excesses, during the operations of the year. The corrected stocks, as per the actuals, are carried forward in the books and financial statements for the preparation of the final accounts and the balance sheet. When the officers of the Special Audit Department of the Central Excise had conducted the audit, for the period between December, 1997 and February, 1998, it had been found that the production quantities were not entered regularly. The quantity cleared on a parti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

stigations had been conducted at the company's actual working area, based on the information gathered from its records. During the physical verification, the appellant company had not put forth any valid reason for the shortages. Hence, it had been observed that the appellant company had cleared their final products without payment of duty, by contravening the provisions of Rule 9(1), read with Rules 173F, 52A, 53, 173G and 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In such circumstances, a noti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ot been shown in the records and it had not been cleared on payment of duty and as to why penalty should not be imposed on the company for the violations committed by it, under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and under Rules 173Q and 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2.4) The appellant had submitted a reply, dated 7.2.1999, explaining the manufacturing process and the stock taking procedure followed by the company. It had been stated that there was no shortage, but only a proc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the department to drop the proceedings. 2.5) The Commissioner of Central Excise had passed an Order-in-Original, dated 29.7.1999, imposing an amount of ₹ 45,26,680/-, in respect of the goods found short, under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, after adjusting the excess castings found in the shortage notices. A penalty of ₹ 8,80,756/- had been imposed on the appellant, under Section 11AC of the Act, for the period of demand, after 28.9.1996, and a penalt .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

vice Tax Appellate Tribunal had passed a common order, in Final Order No.1261 and 1262 of 2006, holding that the Commissioner of Central Excise, was not right demanding a lesser duty of ₹ 45,26,680/-, instead of ₹ 58,09,503.64, as proposed in the show cause notice. With regard to the duty demand on excess goods found, as the Commissioner of Central Excise had not given a definite finding as to whether they had been cleared on payment of duty, the matter had been remanded to decide on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ellants' Internal Audit Department in accordance with accounting standards when there was no evidence of clearance of goods from the foundry of the appellants? 2. Has the Tribunal committed serious error in reversing the order of the learned Commissioner of Central Excise in so far as the learned Commissioner of Central Excise itself had noticed that the excess found by the assessee during annual stock-taking had been corrected and taken into account and hence no short levy can be presumed? .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ted that he is not pressing the following substantial question of law raised by him at the time of admission and he has also made an endorsement to that effect: "Has the Tribunal committed serious error in reversing the order of the learned Commissioner of Central Excise in so far as the learned Commissioner of Central Excise itself had noticed that the excess found by the assessee during annual stock-taking had been corrected and taken into account and hence no short levy can be presumed?& .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

an Lal (Dead) by L.R.s), the order passed by the Tribunal ought to be interfered with. 4. It had been further submitted that the matter adjudicated by the Commissioner of Central Excise, in the Order-in-Original, dated 29.7.1999, was to the effect that there were shortages of Iron and Aluminium castings, as noted from the stock taking done, as per the internal audit of the appellant company. The shortages of the goods in the stock taking of the internal audit of the appellant company had been 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

cannot reflect the correct state of affairs. Such observations made by the Tribunal are erroneous in nature, as the appellants have consistently maintained and pleaded that the stock inventory taken by the internal audit pertain to Work-in-Progress' and not finished castings required to be entered in RG1 Register, as the Work-in-Progress' had not reached the RG1 stage. 6. It had been further submitted that the case of the appellant was that the internal audit had compared the stock, as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

39;. Even though the Tribunal had accepted the said position, it had arrived at a wrong conclusion. 7. It had been further submitted that the case of the appellant is corroborated by the statements made by R.Giridhar Gopalan and V.Jayakumar, which had been relied on by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal had not considered the annual audited balance sheet of the appellant and that data contained therein, more particularly, those which had been shown in the Annexure to the letter, dated 19.2.1999 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ibunal had misread the case of the appellant, as if the appellant had pleaded and failed to establish that the discrepancy was due to clerical errors. The Tribunal had neglected to note that the Commissioner of Central Excise, vide his adjudication, has stated in Paragraph-19, that, in the show cause notice, there was no allegation of clandestine removal of the goods. Thus, without any evidence of removal of the goods, the Tribunal could not have upheld the duty demand, as it is clear that there .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f Section 11AC had been set out or applied to the case. The mere fact of affirmation of duty demand need not necessarily result in the affirmation of penalty, under Section 11AC of the Act, as the penalty proceedings in the said Section are quasi criminal in nature, as per the decision of the Supreme Court, in The Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal Vs. Anwar Ali, 1970(2) SCC 185. 10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the department had submitted that there is no error in the findin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

relevant particulars. Hence, the duty amount of ₹ 45,26,680/- had been made and a penalty had been imposed, under Section 11AC of the Act, by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The department had filed an appeal against the Order-in-Original No.4/99, under Section 35E(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, in Appeal No.E/1055/2000, challenging the reduction of duty amount. The appellant had filed an the appeal before the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal against the Order-in- .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e had rendered his decision arriving at his conclusions which are against the appellant. Further, the department has been aggrieved by the findings of the Tribunal, reducing the amount demanded, from ₹ 58,09,503.64 to ₹ 45,26,680/-. As such, the Tribunal had arrived at its conclusions based on the relevant facts and the provisions of law applicable to the case. Therefore, the present appeals, filed by the appellant, are devoid of merits and therefore, they are liable to be dismissed. .....

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