New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (7) TMI 292 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH

2016 (7) TMI 292 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH - 2016 (344) E.L.T. 599 (Tri. - Chan.) - Clandestine removal of goods - demand of duty on the basis of turnover of their dealer - manufacturing or automobile parts - Commissioner (Appeals) oberved that clandestine removal of goods is on the basis of assumption and presumption, therefore, the demand of duty are not sustainable - Held that:- As it is clear from the facts of the case itself that M/s SVTC is not exclusively dealer of the appellant and exclusively .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ce against M/s JYL, the duty cannot be demanded merely on the basis of turnover of their dealer. - No demand can sustain - Decided against the revenue. - Central Excise Appeal No. 2884 to 2887 of 2006 - Final Order No. 60103-60106/2016 - Dated:- 19-5-2016 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Judicial Member and Mr. Raju, Technical Member Present Shri Sanjay Jain, A.R. for the Appellant/Revenue Present Ms. Krati Somani with Ms. Swati Gupta, Advocates for the respondent. Revenue is in appeal against the impugn .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

issued to all the respondents on the allegation that M/s JYL is engaged in the manufacturing of clandestine removal of goods and selling them through M/s SVTC. The evidences to allege the same are statements of Shri S.K. Dev, (General Manager) of M/s SVTC during the course of investigation and the agreement between M/s JYL and SVTC. Show cause notices were adjudicated and the adjudicating authority confirmed the duty from M/s JYL along with interest and various penalties were imposed on all 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

f M/s SVTC and the goods found at the time of visit in the stock of M/s SVTC, therefore, the impugned order is to be set aside. 3. Ld. A.R. appearing for Revenue drew our attention to the adjudication order wherein the adjudicating authority has recorded the fact that Shri S K Dev, General Manager of M/s SVTC has made statement that he was looking after the sales of M/s SVTC and dealt with the product manufactured by M/s JYL for which they introduced themselves as representative of M/s JYL, He h .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

submitted that as M/s SVTC is the sole selling the auto parts of M/s JYL and the same JYL has shown clearance to M/s SVTC is very less quantity in their books of account where SVTC cleared huge quantity of auto parts, therefore, the said evidence is the crucial evidence from where M/s SVTC procured the goods. On the other hand ID. Counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order. 4. Heard the parties and perused the records. On perusal of the records and considering the arguments advance .....

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, M/s SVTC was dealing with the goods purchased from M/s AP Motors, M/s New Bansal Agency who are dealers of M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd. and purchasing goods and selling them in the open market and the clearances were presumed by Revenue as manufacture of M/s JYL which is not correct and as per investigation itself, these things have been examined by the Id. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order wherein he has observed as under : 16. The charge of the clandestine removal is based on the fac .....

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 law that charge of clandestine removal is a serious charge and it needs to be proved by the department by adducing cogent and convincing evidence. 17. The appellants have contended that there is no basis whatsoever on the above finding that there has been clandestine removal of goods by JYL to SVTC and there is no evidence produced by the Department to show that there has been clandestine removal of the goods by the department to show clandestine removal of the goods and merely because there h .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssioner as well. They have also given a list of other dealers from whom they had purchased the goods which is as under : - (a) M/s A.P. Motors-Trader (b) New Bansal Agencies-Trader (c) M/s Modern Engg. Works-Manufacturer (d) M/s Trust Auto Corpn.- Manufacturer (e) M/s Tacco Auto Industries Manufacturer 19. The appellants had further denied the allegation made that they only issued invoice and the goods have not been supplied as this allegation was without any basis and no evidence had been produ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oods from other dealers as well as they have also produced the documents in respect of their contention that they had been purchasing the goods from other dealers as well and against the purchases made by them from other dealers, they were making the payment through cheque and this would show that transaction were duly accounted as well. 20. Further on perusal of statement dated 12.08.99 of Sh. Dev, Manager of SVTC and statement dated 10.1.2001, it has been stated that SVTC were dealing with 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

om various sources and a quantity of 200 Nos. were purchases from JYL. 1986 Nos were purchased from AP motors. Therefore it becomes clear that majority of the goods were purchased by them from the local dealers. This supports the submission made by SVTC that they were purchasing the goods from other dealers as well and there is no rebuttal to these evidence that they had purchased these goods from the local dealers. 22. The impugned order has relied on the facts that the invoices under which goo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lly when the appellants have produced lot of evidence in support of their contention that they had purchased from the local dealers and that there is no excess sale made by them. It is further found that the impugned order had decided on the basis that SVTC could sell only goods supplied by JYL and no other goods. This finding appears to be not correct in view of the fact that SVTC were the distributors of JYL which only meant that JYL would sell the goods in the replacement market through SVTC .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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