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 Metro Electrical Pvt Ltd, Shri Sandeep Garg, Shri Vinod Garg Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi

2016 (1) TMI 840 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Redemption fine along with penalties - clandestine removal - non-duty paid stock - Held that:- As out of total seized goods of ₹ 73,28,787/-, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that goods amounting to ₹ 18,27,926/- is liable for confiscation on the ground that M/s. Metro was not able to show the invoices for the same. The appellant has contended that they are receiving wire and cables of spools and selling the wire and cables after cutting the size according to the requirements .....

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 set aside, then from where, Metro procured such wire and cables. In these circumstances, the contention of M/s. Metro is acceptable that there is marginal difference of 2% of stock in excess is due to excess length of wire and cables on spool being a trade practice. As they are receiving wire and cable of spools and on having spools on wires and cables on extra length. In these circumstances, the excess stock of ₹ 18,27,926/- is not liable for confiscation. Consequently, the redemption f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

l, Member (J) For the Appellant : Shri Naveen Mullick, Adv For the Respondent : Shri BB Sharma, AR ORDER Per Ashok Jindal The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order imposing redemption fine of ₹ 2 lakh on M/s. Metro Electricals (P) Ltd. and imposing penalties on Shri Sandeep Garg and Shri Vinod Garg. 2. The facts of the case are that on 12.1.2007, the officers of Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence visited the factory premises of one M/s. Pymen Cable (India), De .....

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. The said order was challenged before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who hold that goods worth ₹ 18,27,926/- is liable for confiscation out of seized goods valued at ₹ 73,28,787/-, and imposed a redemption fine of ₹ 2 lakhs, and also imposed penalty on Shri Sandeep Garg of ₹ 50,000/- under Rule 26 and on Shri Vinod Garg a penalty of ₹ 10,000/- under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Aggrieved from the said order, appellants are in appeal before .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d also from S B Industries, Delhi. M/s. K R Electricals, India, M/s. Carto Cable India, M/s. Rana Enterprises, M/s. Parul Agencies, M/s. Keshosis Industries, M/s. S B Systems, M/s. C I Electric Company, M/s. Raj Electric Company and many other suppliers and also produced all records of sale and purchase during the course of investigation. The charge of clandestine removal by M/s. Pymen Cables of goods lying in godown of M/s. Metro was only on the basis of assumption and surmises with no tangible .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

length, on this account due to the reason that wire and cable on spools is having marginal excesses, the difference in stock of ₹ 18,27,926/- when compared to the total purchase of ₹ 8.5 crores worked out to be 2%. Therefore, it cannot be said that goods in question is not duty paid stock. Learned Commissioner (Appeals)has not given any credence to these submissions and there is no other evidence on record to show that M/s. Metro has purchased such a stock without payment of duty. M .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Metro has not been penalized and Shri Sandeep Garg is director of M/s. Metro, therefore, the penalty cannot be imposed on him. Moreover, the penalty imposed on Shri Vinod Garg have not legal sanctioned as the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has already held that charge of clandestine removal against M/s. Pymen Cables is only the based on presumption and surmises and Shri Vinod Garg is the proprietor of M/s. Pymen Cables India. As M/s. Pymen Cables India and Shri Vinod Garg are one and the same, 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

tion, the adjudicating authority confirmed the charge of clandestine removal of goods. On appeals, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the allegation of clandestine removal against M/s. Pymen Cables is based on presumption and surmises. As the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has dropped the charge of clandestine removal of goods, in these circumstances, the penalty on Shri Vinod Garg, Proprietor of M/s. Pymen Cables is not imposable when Shri Vinod Garg is not involved in the act .....

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