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 Palsana Fibres Pvt. Ltd., Shri Ratanlal Mahavirprasad Daruka Versus Commissioner, C. Ex. & S. Tax, Surat

2016 (9) TMI 475 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

Whether the Appellant would be eligible to discharge duty @ 16% as per tariff rate or the benefit of Notification No.6/2002-CE, dt.01.03.2002 be allowed in calculating the duty liability on the cleared quantity of 26157.600 kgs of Textured yarn - period involved is 01.04.2002 to 07.06.2002 - Held that:- from the impugned order we could not notice any observation on the evidentiary value of the CA certificate and its acceptability showing that the said quantity of POY had been purchased and consu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ner (Appeals) to decide the issues afresh after considering all evidences on record and the evidences that would be produced by the Appellant and in particular the acceptability or otherwise of the CA Certificate. - Appeal disposed of - Appeal No. E/1198, 1199/2008-DB - Order No. A/10410-10411/2016 - Dated:- 16-5-2016 - Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) And Mr. P.M. Saleem, Member (Technical) For the Appellants: Shri Mukund Chauhan, Chartered Accountant For the Respondent: Shri L. Patra, A.R. OR .....

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 investigation, it was noticed that the Appellant had removed 26157.60 kgs of finished Textured Yarn clandestinely without payment of duty during the period from 01.04.2002 to 07.06.2002. Consequently, a Show Cause-cum Demand Notice was issued to them on 28.04.2005 for recovery of duty of ₹ 4,71,675.00 and proposition for imposition of penalty on the Appellant company; also personal penalty on the second Appellant. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed and equivalent penalty was .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

llant submits that the authorities below had wrongly denied the benefit of Notification No.06/2002-CE, dt.01.03.2002 in calculating the duty liability, even though the Appellant company had satisfied the conditions of the said notification viz. POY used in the manufacture of Textured Yarn had suffered duty and also they have not availed CENVAT Credit on the said POY. It is his contention that after the records were seized from their premises on 08.06.2002, the appellant later on 02.09.2002 submi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ntion that the details of POY received, consumed in the manufacture of textured yarn including the clearances of 26157.60 kgs during the said period had been submitted in the reply to the Show Cause Notice. It is their grievance that the authorities below, without any contrary evidence on record, erroneously rejected the purchase invoices issued by M/s Parsrampuria Synthetics Ltd. It is their argument that the quantity of POY mentioned in these invoices, had been duly purchased and payments were .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lowed the Appellant to pay 25% of the penalty imposed under Sec.11AC of CEA,1944 on fulfillment necessary conditions in view of the decision of the Hon ble Gujrat High Court in the case of CCE Vs Harish Silk Mills 2010 (255) ELT 393 (Guj.) and CCE Vs G.P.Presstress Concrete Works 2015 (323) ELT 709 (Guj), they are eligible to the same. 5. Per contra, the learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue took us through the finding of the Adjudicating authority, where under, the Adjudicating auth .....

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 statement was retracted on 17.10.2003, but the same being an after thought action hence not acceptable. It is his contention that the Appellant could not adduce sufficient evidences in this regard, therefore, they are not eligible to the benefit of the Notification. He contended that it is brought out in the SCN and OIO that the opening balance of POY shown in Form IV Register as on 01.04.2002 was only 4803.750 Kgs. Further, though the invoices of M/s Parsurampuria Synthetics Ltd are dated 12/ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

addressed is: whether the Appellant would be eligible to discharge duty @ 16% as per tariff rate or the benefit of Notification No.6/2002-CE, dt.01.03.2002 be allowed in calculating the duty liability on the cleared quantity of 26157.600 kgs of Textured yarn. On perusal of the said Notification, it is clear that two conditions need to be satisfied so as to be eligible to the benefit of said notification. These are namely, the duty must have been paid on the POY used for texturisation and CENVAT .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

anufactured from POY purchased in cash from the market, but the said statement was claimed to have been under pressure and without verification of the proper data. Hence, subsequently, through their letter dt.02.09.2002, the purchase of 23540.700 kgs of POY from M/s Parsurampuria Synthetics against three duty paid excise invoices was submitted and this fact was confirmed by Shri Ratanlal Mahavirprasad Daruka in his subsequent statement on 17.10.2003 while retracting his earlier statement dt.08.0 .....

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