Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s NTT Plywood Industries Pvt Ltd And H.S. Anand, Director Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur

2016 (6) TMI 464 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Central Excise Duty recovery of unaccounted production and clearance of block-board, decorative plywood and film laminated plywood - duty demand and penalty imposed - Held that:- There was a seizure of undeclared items in the premises of the appellants. The original authority examined all the evidences and the submissions made by the appellants regarding the contention of the appellants that they were manufacturing block-board up to 31.03.2000 and there after stopped the production. This is not .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

showing production of various types of plywoods are not reflected in the RG-I or lab register. We find the Original Authority as well as First Appellate Authority have examined the evidences available to arrive at the conclusion of undeclared manufacture and clearance of excisable goods by the appellants. - Decided against assessee. - Excise Appeal No. E/1049, 1050/2006-EX(DB) - Dated:- 26-2-2016 - S. K. Mohanty, Member (J) And B. Ravichandran, Member (T) For the Petitioner : Shri Bipin Garg, Ad .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tion of enquiry, proceedings were initiated against the appellant to recover Central Excise Duty of unaccounted production and clearance of block-board, decorative plywood and film laminated plywood. The Original Authority vide his order dated 13.06.2003 confirmed a demand of ₹ 3,22,684/- and imposed a penalty of equal amount. He also imposed a penalty of ₹ 25,000/- on the Managing Director of the appellant Company. On appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order upheld 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

t. (c) The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) failed to analyze and appreciate the submissions made by the appellant before deciding the case. 2. The ld.A.R. supported the finding of the Lower Authorities. He submitted that the physical seizure of undeclared goods in the premises of the appellant, procurement of raw-materials usable for manufacture of such undeclared goods, statement of Manager (Production) accounts maintained in the form of hard press production chart clearly indicate that the appellan .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version