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, Haldia Versus M/s. Kamini Ferrous Ltd.

2016 (4) TMI 491 - CESTAT KOLKATA

Denial of Cenvat credit and demand of duty - Clandestine removal of goods - Shortage of raw materials - Procurement of Bazar's scrap without cover of invoices - Excess production of finished goods as per private records maintained - Held that:- Revenue cannot deny the CENVAT Credit and simultaneously confirm duty liability on the finished goods. The shortage of raw materials on which CENVAT Credit is proposed to be denied has to be considered as used in the manufacture of finished goods along wi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

25% option of reduced penalty under Section 11AC has not been extended to the appellant with respect to penalty. The same is extended to the appellant if the entire duty amount along with interest and reduced 25% penalty is paid within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Hence, so far as denial of credit is concerned, the demand is set aside and accordingly equivalent penalty imposed is also set aside. - Decided partly in favour of revenue - Appeal No. EA-422/07 - ORDER NO.FO/A/752 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

wherein a demand of ₹ 10,13,102/- was confirmed against the Respondent herein with respect to clandestine removal of goods and CENVAT Credit of ₹ 1,03,104/- was also confirmed for the inputs found short during a visit by the Officers of Anti-Evasion of Kolkata-II Commissionerate made on 10.02.2001. 2. Shri A.K.Biswas, Supdt.(AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that a joint stock verification report of the raw materials and the finished goods was undertaken during the course .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tral Excise duty of ₹ 10,13,102/-. It was strongly argued by the Ld.AR that stock-taking report prepared in the presence of the Appellant has not been agitated by the Respondent. It was his case that Order-in-Appeal passed by the First Appellate Authority is thus not correct and is required to be set aside. 3. None appeared on behalf of the Respondent. This case was earlier fixed for hearings on 13th occasions on 11.12.2013, 06.02.2014, 02.04.2014, 03.07.2014, 05.09.2014, 17.12.2014, 27.02 .....

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