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 →

ROHIT FERRO TECH LTD. Versus THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXERCISE & ORS.

2016 (6) TMI 769 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

Estimation of substantial shortage of goods through visual joint stock verification - accurate verification of the stock was not conducted - Anomaly in the show cause notice - Held that:- There is no doubt that in course of the joint verification of the stock at the petitionerís manufacturing facility conducted on September 22-23, 2015 substantial shortage of goods was discovered. However, such discovery has not culminated in any adjudication finding the petitioner guilty of actually evading dut .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ng confronted with the material against the petitioner as may have been contained in the proposal forwarded by the Durgapur Commissionerate to the Chief Commissioner, the order impugned dated March 15, 2016 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, such order is liable to be set aside. However, since it is evident that the petitioner has not tendered payment of the entire sum of ₹ 1,50,05,658/- pursuant to the joint stock verification conducted in September, 2015, the order of March 15, 2016 will .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n order has been made by the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise under a notification of March 21, 2014 on the basis of a proposal forwarded by the Durgapur Commissionerate without a copy of such proposal being made available to the petitioner or the allegations against the petitioner that may be contained in such proposal being disclosed to the petitioner. It appears that a raid was conducted at the petitioner s manufacturing facility in Durgapur in September, 2015. According to the petitioner .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

djudication as to the shortage of goods. The petitioner refers to a notice of November 30, 2015 issued by the office of the Chief Commissioner requiring the petitioner to show cause why appropriate steps would not be taken against the petitioner in terms of the notification of March 21, 2014. The petitioner replied to the notice of November 30, 2015 on Februrary 18, 2016 and the petitioner referred to the proposal of the Durgapur Commissionerate not being supplied to the petitioner. The petition .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

gly done or contravened anything specified in the first paragraph of the notification. The notification also requires the concerned person to be afforded an opportunity of hearing before an order is passed thereunder. There is no doubt that in course of the joint verification of the stock at the petitioner s manufacturing facility conducted on September 22-23, 2015 substantial shortage of goods was discovered. However, such discovery has not culminated in any adjudication finding the petitioner .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ay have been possible for other anomalies to be discovered in course of the raid and there is no doubt that such other anomalies find reference in the proposal forwarded by the Durgapur Commissionerate to the Chief Commissioner. But the show-cause notice of November 30, 2015 issued by the Chief Commissioner to the petitioner did not append a copy of the proposal nor did such notice set out the salient contents of the proposal for the petitioner to make a meaningful representation in such regard. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r being taken into consideration without reference to the petitioner. Neither the notice of November 30, 2015 nor in course of the opportunity afforded to the petitioner s representative of a hearing, was the proposal of the Durgapur Commissionerate or the allegations or perception as to misconduct reflected therein made known to the petitioner. Since the opportunity afforded to the petitioner appears to have been a meaningless exercise without the petitioner being confronted with the material a .....

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