Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (4) TMI 282 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2016 (4) TMI 282 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - TMI - Confiscation of seized goods - Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Manufacture of Khandsari Sugar - In January 2005 appellant put up a boiler and vaccum pan for manufacture of sugar. After enquiry the stock of sugar in the factory and the state warehousing corporation and molasses in the factory were seized - Held that:- There is no determination of any duty liability or any violation of the provisions which will occur on such duty liability no .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ese purported violations stand decided when the Original Authority confirmed the correctness of seizure and ordered the confiscation. Also there is no justification of such action without a clear finding about the violations committed by the appellant. More specifically the liability of the appellant to Central Excise duty itself has not been established categorically. In these circumstances, the impugned order is not sustainable and accordingly, set aside. Matter is remanded back to the origina .....

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 Per B Ravichandran The present appeal is against the order dated 21.07.2006 of Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise- Bhopal. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Khandsari Sugar. In January 2005 they have put up a boiler and vaccum pan for manufacture of sugar. In February, 2005 the officers of Central Excise visited the unit and conducted certain enquiries. The stock of sugar in the factory and the state warehousing corporation and molasses in the factory were seized. The total v .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Appellant and ₹ 1,00,000/- penalty on the Director of the Appellant Company. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order except for modification of the redemption fine to ₹ 40,000/- and penalty to ₹ 25,000/- on the appellant. In another Appellate Order dated 24.07.2006, the penalty on the Director was reduced to ₹ 20,000/-. Aggrieved by these orders, the appellants filed these two appeals. 2. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 3. We 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

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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