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 →

CCE, Raipur Versus M/s Chakra Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd., M/s Ind Agro Synergy And M/s Ind Synergy Ltd.

2016 (3) TMI 397 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Clandestine removal - goods not actually manufactured and cleared - Held that:- Bogus invoices have no meaning in the face of full payment of duty, as such invoices will help unscrupulous entities to show higher expenditure and to derive financial benefits in tax matters etc. It is not clear how, even if accepted, such assertion is going to change the findings in the impugned order. The duty which is sought to be demanded and confirmed by the Original Authority has already been remitted by the 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

os. 1190, 1423 of 2008 and 2730 of 2010 with C.O. No. 221 of 2010 (SM) - Final Order No. 50118-50120/2016 - Dated:- 22-1-2016 - SHRI B. RAVICHANDRAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : Shri R.K. Grover, Authorized Representative (DR) For the Respondent : Shri B.L. Narasimhan, Ms. Sukriti Das and Shri Manish Saharan, Advocates ORDER PER. B. RAVICHANDRAN :- These three appeals are filed by the Revenue against the orders passed by Commissioner (Appeals-I/II), Raipur. The brief facts of the cas .....

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 by the assessee without actual manufacture and clearance. It was also concluded that equivalent quantity of finished goods and inputs have been clandestinely manufactured/ cleared as such without payment of duty. Proceedings were initiated for demanding duty of ₹ 42,07,447/-. After due process the Original Authority issued order dated 07/9/2007 confirming the demand and imposing equal penalty on the main respondent and ₹ 1,00,000/- and on M/s Ind Agro Synergy (respondent in appeal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

bject mater of further proceedings. In that proceedings, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 06/5/2010 upheld the eligibility of credit following the findings already made in respect of manufacturer/supplier of the impugned goods namely M/s Chakra Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. vide earlier order dated 07/3/2008. Aggrieved by this order, the Revenue filed appeal No. E/2730/2010. The respondent also filed a Cross Objection to this appeal. 3. The learned AR reiterated the grounds of appeal and su .....

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 allegation made by the Revenue either in the show cause notice or in the original findings. The admitted facts are that the main respondent/ assessee have discharged the indicated Central Excise duty of ₹ 42,07,444/- for which they issued due invoices and maintained all statutory accounts ; (b) the Department s case is there is no physical clearance of either finished goods or inputs as such. With this conclusion, the Department proceeded further to allege clandestine manufacture an .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ve been supported by some evidence of unaccounted manufacture or clearance. There is no semblance of such evidence in the present case. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for respondent in appeal E/2730/2010 submitted that the respondent [M/s Ind Synergy Ltd.] are one of the recipients of duty paid goods from the main respondent. Originally the credit was denied after the issue of order dated 31/1/2008 of Additional Commissioner. Later after the said order was set aside in appeal the respondent to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

em in availing the legally eligible credit. 6. Heard both the sides and examined the appeal records. At the outset it is to be pointed out that the original allegation and the present appeal which was based on such allegation present propositions which are peculiar and contradictory. The case of the Revenue is that based on detailed investigation it is established that the main respondent did not physically clear the impugned quantities of finished goods and the inputs as such and only issued do .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Appeals) in his order dated 07/3/2008. Some of the observations in the impugned order are revealing : 7. It is an undisputed fact that the applicants have discharged duty of ₹ 42,07,447/- on a quantity of 631.295 MT of inputs and 902.182 MT of finished goods. When this duty has already been paid on 631.295 MT of inputs removed as such and 902.182 MT and which is identical in all respects to the amount of duty demanded under the impugned order for the same quantities of goods, then it was n .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

95 MT of inputs, as such, on payment of duty but these goods are not the ones which were supplied to the purchasers, as a different set of identical goods had been manufactured and clandestinely removed from the factory alongwith an identical set of inputs and for which accommodation invoices had been issued to the purchasers. If this is what the lower authority meant then he has to answer two instead of one question. Firstly, what happened to goods on which duty had been paid where did these di .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

finished goods which were never manufactured and removed and also paid duty on inputs but which were never removed but accommodation invoices on this strength were issued to the purchasers. On the other hand, an identical set of finished goods were manufactured and clandestinely removed without payment of duty and so also inputs were removed as such but clandestinely. This proposition seems absurd and is not acceptable to me . 7. Further in the grounds of appeal it was mentioned that the Commiss .....

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