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 →

CCE, Raipur Versus M/s Uday Sponge & Power (P) Ltd.

2016 (8) TMI 435 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Clandestine removal of sponge iron - Demand of duty alongwith interest and penalty - period involved is 2005-2006 to 2006-2007 - no statement of appellant admitting clandestine removal - Held that:- the appellant never confessed having removed any goods clandestinely. As the cross examination of transporters and the commission agent was denied and having regard to the fact that such denial certainly caused prejudice to the appellant as their statements were relied upon for the purpose of sustain .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed:- 15-2-2016 - Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical) Shri Vaibhav Bhatnagar, D.R. for the appellant Shri Manish Saharan, Advocate for the respondent ORDER Per R.K. Singh: Revenue is in appeal against order-in-appeal dated 12.11.2013 only to the extent it pertains to M/s Uday Sponge and Power P. Ltd. (the respondent) against which the primary adjudicating authority confirmed demand of ₹ 34,67,766/- along with interest and equal mandatory penalty on the ground that it clandestinely cleared 22 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

stine removal. 3. ld. Advocate for the respondent, on the other hand, stated that it had sought cross examination of co-noticees whose statements were relied upon which was denied on the ground that the reason for seeking cross examination was not spelt out. He stated that there was no clandestine clearance and the transporters have not stated that they removed any goods from the appellant s factory without payment of duty. He added that third party evidence cannot be held sufficient to sustain .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rting the excisable goods namely Sponge Iron, from the factory premises of various manufacturers situated in Bhanpuri, Urla and Sitara. I found that none of transporters mentioned supra has admitted in their statements recorded by the department specifically that they have loaded and transported the said alleged goods without the cover of invoices from the factory premises of the appellant No. 1. Further, no Loading advices were found with the said transporters in respect of alleged quantity of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s, the demand of duty amounting to ₹ 34,67,766/- (including cess) from Appellant No. 1 without substantiating concrete and affirmative evidences such as, Transport of the impugned goods, flow back of money from entities to which impugned goods were allegedly sold, confirmation regarding the actual buyer of the goods, physical verification of stock of raw materials and finished goods, use of more labour/manpower, excess electricity consumption and other corroborative evidences like confessi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

icity consumption, payment of charges, transportation bills, etc. Thus, I do not find any substantial and corroborative evidences against Appellant No. 1 and accordingly find no merit in the impugned order confirming demand of duty from Appellant No. 1. Held accordingly. 5. I find that the appellant never confessed having removed any goods clandestinely. As the cross examination of transporters and the commission agent was denied and having regard to the fact that such denial certainly caused pr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ke no difference-meaning that a hearing would not change the ultimate conclusion reached by the decision-maker in such situations, fair procedures appear to serve no purpose since the right result can be secured without according hearing/cross-examination. (ii) It may not be necessary to strike down the action and refer the matter back to the authorities to take fresh decision after complying with the procedural requirement in those cases where non-grant of hearing has not caused any prejudice 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

 

 

 

 

 

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