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 →

M/s. Maithan Steel & Power Ltd. And Shri Satinath Mukherjee Versus CCE & ST, Bolpur

2016 (4) TMI 931 - CESTAT KOLKATA

Demand of interest - Improper stock taking method - Whether certain shortages of sponge iron detected by the officers during a joint physical stock verification were correct or not - Authorized signatory was present during the course of such stock-taking and the method adopted and the duty liability was accepted by appellants. Also the duty involved on the shortages of finished goods was also paid on the same day without protest.

Held that:- weighment of goods was done by a joint phys .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ppellant cannot turn around and take a stand that stock-taking was inappropriately done. In view of the above the aspect of shortages of goods is established and the duty demand voluntarily paid by appellant No.1 without protest is required to be confirmed. So far as payment of interest on the confirmed demand is concerned, it is observed that shortage was detected on 12.08.2011 and the corresponding demand was also paid by appellant No.1 on the same day, therefore, there is no interest liabilit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Respondent : Shri S.S.Chatterjee, Supdt.(AR) ORDER PER SHRI H.K.THAKUR. These Appeals have been filed by the Appellants against Order-in-Appeal No.39-40/BOL/2013 dated 29.04.2013 passed by the Commissioner(Appeal-III) of Central Excise, Kolkata, under which Appeals filed by the Appellants were dismissed. 2. Shri N.K.Chowdhury (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the Appellants argued that Appellant No.1 M/s.Maithan Steel & Power Ltd. is a manufacturer of sponge iron falling under Central Excise .....

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 agreed to pay the duty. That the entire amount of duty was deposited by the appellant on 12.08.2011 itself through e-payment. That subsequently a show cause notice was received by the Appellants by considering the shortages to be due to clandestine removal of the goods. It was the case of the ld.Advocate that the methodology of stock-taking was not correct. That such claim was made by the Appellant No.1 only after issue of Show Cause Notice during the course of adjudication. That First Appella .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

3 (289) ELT 482] (b) CCE & ST, Ludhiana v. Anand Founders & Engineers [2016 (331) ELT340 (P & H)] (c) CC(Imports), Chennai-I v. Sainul Abideen Neelam [2014 (300) ELT 342 (Mad.)] (d) A.R. Shanmugasundaram v. CCE, Salem [2016 (333) ELT 158(Tri. Chennai] (e) CCE, Kanpur v. Minakshi Castings [2011(274) ELT 180(All.)] (f) Swastick Tubes Pvt.Ltd.v.CCE, Kanpur [2009 (248) ELT 698(Tri.Del.) (g) Anghinghu Nice Tobacco (FIRM) v. CCE, Madurai [2013 (298) ELT 570(Tri.Channai) (h) RHL Profiles Lt .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

od of stock-taking was not disputed by the Appellants and was done in their presence. That proper inventories were prepared during stock-taking which were also signed by Appellant No.2. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. 5. The issue involved in the present case is whether certain shortages (95.790 MT) of sponge iron detected by the officers of Central Excise on 12.08.2011 during a joint physical stock verification were correct or not. Authorized signatory (Appellant No.2) was pre .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

borne out by the records that the dumpers used for weighment were not capable of finishing the stock-taking within a small period indicated in the Panchnama. It is observed from the case records that weighment of goods was done by a joint physical stock verification where authorized signatory of Appellant No.1 was also present and the methodology was also approved by the Appellants. Any retraction of statement or questioning the methodology of weighment can be made before the issue of Show Caus .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed to be confirmed. So far as payment of interest on the confirmed demand is concerned, it is observed that shortage was detected on 12.08.2011 and the corresponding demand was also paid by Appellant No.1 on the same day, therefore, there is no interest liability on Appellant No.1 on this account. 6. However, Appellants have relied upon several case laws on the issue of clandestine removal of the shortages detected and imposition of penalty. It is observed from the case law CCE, Kanpur v. Minaks .....

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