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 →

Sarvottam Rolling Mills P. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of C. Ex., Meerut-I

2015 (6) TMI 986 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Liability of duty on account of non-accountal shortage of goods - Held that:- Record reveals that ld. adjudicating authority penalized the appellant under Rule 25 read with Section 11AC of Central Excise of 1944. Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n respect of shortage noticed in the course of inventory during investigation. When such is the event this is a case inviting penal provision of section 11AC with the aid of Rule of 25 Central Excise, 2002. Therefore, the appeal is remanded to the Co .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on of penalty. This Tribunal has not given any finding on the issue of duty liability. Therefore, recall the order of this Tribunal dated 21-10-2014 and direct the registry to relist the appeal to be heard on merits. - E/1824/2012-EX(SM) - Misc. Orde .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er passed by this Tribunal on 21-10-2014. 2. Heard the ld. Counsel for the applicant who submits that the applicant has contested the liability of duty on account of non-accountal shortage of goods found at the time of inspection while weighment .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

reduced to ₹ 50,000/- from ₹ 3,78,619/-. The said findings of the ld. Commissioner (A) have not been contested by the Revenue. Therefore, the findings of this Tribunal while passing the order to remand the matter to ld. Commissioner (A) t .....

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 is no evidence of clandestine removal of goods. Therefore, duty as well as penalty is not imposable. 3. Heard the ld. Counsel for the appellant and perused the records. 4. On perusal of the records I find that this Tribunal has passed 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

veals that ld. adjudicating authority penalized the appellant under Rule 25 read with Section 11AC of Central Excise of 1944. Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 deals with circumstances in which penalty can be imposed taking shelter of section 11A .....

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