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. Rainbow Wires Pvt. Ltd. And Narayan Sharma, Director Versus C.C.E. Indore

2016 (7) TMI 1108 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Central Excise duty demand - penalties imposed - duty has been worked out on the basis of clearances computed on the basis of entries in various documents recovered during the investigation - Held that:- The statement of the Director of the appellant assessee was never retracted and is indeed supported by the documentary evidences collected during the investigation. In the case of K.I. Pavuney vs Astt. Collector Cochin [1997 (2) TMI 97 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] held that confessional statement, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

We find that Section 11AC came in force on 28.09.1996 while period involved in this case falls within 1994-1995. Therefore, penlaty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not attracted in this case. - Excise Appeal No. E/3044-3045/2006-Ex[DB] - Final Order No. 51334-51334/2016 - Dated:- 31-3-2016 - MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. R. K. SINGH, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohit Chowdhary For the Respondent : Mr. R. K. Grover (DR) ORDER PER R.K. SINGH: Thi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

making wire from wire-rods does not amount to manufacture as has been held in the case of Collector of Central Excise vs Technoweld Industries 2003 (155) ELT 209 (SC). The Ld. Advocate in this regard referred to a statement of the Director. (c) Penalty has been imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and also under Rule 173 Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 while both the penalties simultaneously could not have been imposed. 3. On the other hand, the Ld. DR contended that it is .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

g wire and cleared some of it without payment of duty clandestinely. The Director also admitted the computation of the impugned duty thus evaded. Whether the process amounted to manufacture is not the matter of dispute in this case inasmuch as the Director admitted that the appellant was manufacturing wire. At no stage during investigation or during adjudication by the primary adjudicating authority. The Director or the appellant contended that the impugned goods were not manufactured by it. 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

ing either before the primary adjudicating authority or before the first appellate authority. The Ld. Advocate raised a contention that the impugned goods were made out of wire rods and that making of wire from wire rods does not amount to manufacture as was held by the S.C. in the case of CCE vs Technoweld Industries 2003 (153) ELT 209 (SC). We have perused the records and find that there is no evidence that the impugned goods were made out of wire rods. The appellant also did not take this ple .....

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