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 Metalex Limited, Shri Suresh Bhardwaj, Shri Achil Bharadwaj, M/s ITAC Limited, Shri Rajendra Bharadwaj] Versus CCE, Delhi - II

2016 (5) TMI 1200 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Demand of Central Excise duty - confiscation of seized MS Pipes from two different premises; for imposition of penalties under the various provisions of Central Excise Rules, 1944 - correctness of the conclusion drawn by the Original Authority on the duty liability of the main appellant - Held that:- It is apparent that the admission of the main appellant to the limited duty liability, as mentioned and the rejection of their application for settlement of the case has been the main reason for 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

corded. While admittedly non-payment of duty exist in this case, the quantification of non-paid duty has to be arrived at by analyzing the evidences and taking into account the defence submission alongwith their plea for cross examination as sought for by the appellant. - Considering the above we are constrained to observe that the impugned order in the present form cannot be sustained and has to be set aside. We do so accordingly. The case is remanded back to the Original Authority for a fr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ri Govind Dixit, Authorized Representative (DR) ORDER PER. B. RAVICHANDRAN :- All the five excise appeals are against a common adjudication order dated 27/03/2009 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi - II. Brief facts of the case are that the main appellant M/s Metalex Pipes Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of MS Pipes liable to Central Excise duty. They were registered with the Central Excise Department but they were not paying duty claiming turnover based small scale exemption during th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

om two different premises; for imposition of penalties under the various provisions of Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. On receipt of the above-mentioned show cause notice all the noticees (now the appellants) approached the Settlement Commission by filing application under Section 32E of Central Excise Act, 1944. They have accepted a duty evasion of ₹ 10,85,000/-. On examination of their application and after getting report from the Commissioner, the Settlement Commission rejected the appli .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ions were filed by the appellants before the Settlement Commission. These applications were again considered by the Settlement Commission, Delhi. In these proceedings the main appellant had admitted the duty liability of ₹ 22,49,936/- the proceeding before the Commission concluded by an order dated 29/1/2007 by which the applications by the applicants were again rejected. The main ground of rejection is that the applicants did not make full and true disclosure of their duty liability for t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f redemption fine, imposing penalty of equivalent to duty amount on the main noticee herein and imposing various other amounts of penalties on the other appellants. Aggrieved by this order, the present appeals are filed. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellants mainly submitted on the following lines :- (a) They have requested in their written submissions cross examination of dharamkanta owners whose statements were relied upon in the show cause notice. In addition they have relied upon an affi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ded by the Settlement Commission while rejecting their applications for Settlement. The learned Counsel submitted that while they stand by their admitted duty liability, any additional duty liability should be brought on record with evidences ; (d) He relied on the decision of Honble Gujarat High Court in Commissioner vs. Maruti Fabrics reported in 2014 (308) E.L.T. 407 (Guj.) to submit that while the Adjudicating Authority can refer to the evidences examined in the Settlement Commission, the 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

posed the contention of the appellants. He submitted that in both the proceedings before the Settlement Commission as well as before the Honble Delhi High Court the manner of clandestine activity of the appellant have been examined and prima facie findings have been recorded. The appellants did not make full and true disclosure of duty liability. The same is clear from the findings in these proceedings. He also submitted that the Original Authority rightly relied on the observations made by the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

thought and has no evidentionary value. The learned AR also specifically relied on the Honble Delhi High Court observation regarding the computer records maintained by the employee of the main appellant and view to the effect there is no ground to disbelieve such record. 6. We have heard both the sides extensively and perused the appeal records. The point for decision is that the correctness of the conclusion drawn by the Original Authority on the duty liability of the main appellant. The admit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

us submissions made by them in writing. This includes, primarily, on the request for cross-examination and also their submissions regarding the authenticity of computer records, trading accounts and the veracity of weighbridge owners statement. We agree that a perusal of the original order apparently indicates that a heavy reliance have been placed on the observations of the Settlement Commission as well as High Court passed in connection with rejection of their application for settlement of th .....

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