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. Shri Harie Steels & Alloys Versus Commissioner Of Central Excise, Salem

2016 (4) TMI 972 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Leviability of duty - Unaccounted goods found - Clearance of goods supported by invoices but not appearing in statutory record - lapse by the appellant to record the clearance - appears to be for preventable reason in absence of any enquiry and contrary evidence discarding absence of Excise Clerk came to record - Held that:- Revenue did not interrogate the Excise Clerk to find the truth. Had there been examination of the Excise Clerk, there would have been scope to discard the preliminary eviden .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

penalty - Held that:- there was unaccounting of the transactions for preventable reasons. Preliminary statement recorded from the appellant when discloses unassailable conduct of the appellant, there should be no penalty at all. - Decided in favour of appellant - E/42279/2014 and E/42280/2014 - FINAL ORDER NOs.40513-40514/2016 - Dated:- 24-3-2016 - SHRI D.N. PANDA, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri S. Durairaj, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) ORDER Learned counsel .....

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 unaccounted whereby Revenue has been prejudiced. 1.2 So far as the first allegation is concerned, it was submitted by the appellant that there was involvement duty element of ₹ 1,94,902/- and in the second allegation, duty element involved was ₹ 1,98,254/- as appearing at page 8 of the order in original. 1.3 Explaining the conduct of the appellant, learned counsel says that there was no evidence at all found by Adjudicating Authority or by the investigating agency to impute the con .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as again reiterated in another answer that the mistake committed was without any intention to cause evasion. When a detailed enquiry was made, nothing came against the appellant to substantiate that the first allegation has any merit to stand since the goods had not moved without any duty paying documents accompanied to that. Appellant had also discharged the tax liability thereon. 1.4 So far as the second allegation is concerned, it was submitted by the appellant that no doubt, there was discov .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

edemption fine. So also, there should be no penalty an any count of the allegations. 2. Revenue on the other hand says that not only investigation result but also a detailed enquiry made during adjudication brought out conduct of the appellant as to no accounting of the transactions. Therefore, the appellant has to suffer the adjudication consequences. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records. 4. The detailed evidence recorded by the Adjudication Authority seems to be fair. Appellant has depo .....

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