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 491 - CESTAT KOLKATA

2016 (4) TMI 491 - CESTAT KOLKATA - TMI - 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

it is observed from the case records that 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Adjudicating Authority has been set aside 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 finis .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

iod 01.02.2001 to 07.02.2001 involving Central 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, .....

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