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 →

Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-IV Versus M/s Birla NGK Insulators Pvt. Ltd

2016 (2) TMI 200 - CESTAT KOLKATA

Clandestine removal - whether shortages suggested by the statutory auditors of the Respondent, based on test check, can be made the basis for clandestine removal? - Held that:- There is no evidence with the Revenue that the re-conciliation done by the Respondent is incorrect. There is force in the argument of the Respondent that finished goods can not be both short & excess and that such a situation can be only due to wrong recording of code numbers. There is also no evidence with the department .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s. Accordingly, appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected - Decided in favour of assessee - Appeal No. E/405/2007 - ORDER No. : FO/A/75114/2016 - Dated:- 5-1-2016 - DR. D.M.MISRA, HONBLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL) SHRI H.K.THAKUR, HONBLE Member(TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : Shri A.K. Biswas, Suptd (AR) For the Respondent : Shri Ravi Raghavan, Advocate ORDER PER SHRI H.K.THAKUR This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against O-I-O No. 77/COMMISSIONER(ADJUDICATION)/KOLKATA-IV/2007 Dated-30/3/2007 under .....

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 can not deny the shortages of stock detected by their own statutory auditors. Learned AR relied upon the following case laws in support of Revenue s. Appeal: (i) Bharat Plast Vs CCE Valsad [2004 (168) ELT 2004 (Tri-Mumbai)] ii) Majestic Auto Vs CCE Gaziabad [2004 (172) ELT 0391 (Tri-Del.)] 3. Sh. Ravi Raghavan (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the Respondent argued that stock taking done by their Auditors is based only on random selection of items and was not detected by the Revenue and that R .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

check, does not indicate any clandestine removal which is nothing but a case made by Revenue on presumption & assumption. He relied upon the following case laws. (i) Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd Vs UOI [1978 (2) ELT (J172) (SC)] (ii) Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs CCE, Delhi-III [2004 (173) ELT 382 (Tri- Del.)] (iii) CCE Vs Maruti Udyog Ltd. [2010 (262) ELT 180 ({P&H)] (iv) CCE Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. [2015 (319) ELT 549 (SC)] (v) Durga Trading Company Vs CCE, Lucknow [2002 (148) ELT 967 (Tri-Del.)] ( .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

een considered by the Adjudicating authority. That main buyers of the insulators manufactured by the Respondent are National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd (NTPC), Power Grid Corporation of India, various State Electricity Boards etc. who being Govt. departments/corporations can not be expected to procure clandestinely removed insulators. 3.2. Learned Advocate also made the bench go through Para- 9.5 of the order-in-original dt .30/3/2007, to argue that shortages mentioned by their auditors is 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

r clandestine removal. Revenue has strongly argued that shortages are detected by the statutory auditors of Respondent and there has to be clandestine removal only. On the other hand Respondent has argued that the shortages were suggested by their auditors, based on a test check, which as per Para- 9.5 of the adjudication order dt. 30/3/2007 included both excess & shortages. It is also observed from Paras-7.5 & 7.6 of the O-I-O dt. 30/3/2007 that excess & shortages of finished goods .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

& assumption. Secondly no duty can be demanded on semi finished goods. It is also not the case of the Revenue that shortages of finished goods suggested by the auditors was finally accepted by the Respondent in their balance sheet for the relevant financial year. The case laws relied upon by the Revenue are not applicable for more than one reasons. Firstly shortages are not detected by the departmental officers during stock taking. Secondly 100% of the stock verification has not been done by .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in the argument of the Respondent that even if the shortages suggested by their auditors is taken to be true, then also the same is required to be ignored as per the case law CCE Vs Maruti Udyog Limited (Supra) as the shortage represents only 0.29% of the total production of the Respondent. 4.2. It is further observed that no evidence whatsoever exists that any excess raw material was procured by the Respondent or was found in the stock of the Respondent during the relevant time. A case of cland .....

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