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

2015 (6) TMI 1072 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2015 (6) TMI 1072 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - TMI - Imposition of penalty - Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - non-availability of daily stock account in the factory - records not maintained - Held that:- it is seen that there is no allegation of clandestine removal of goods from the factory by the appellant. The only allegation leveled against the appellant by the authorities below is that daily stock account as provided under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 has not been maintained .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

T] and Supreme Industries Ltd. vs CESTAT, New Delhi, [2007 (5) TMI 25 - HIGH COURT,MADHYA PRADESH] that in absence of fraud, collusion, suppression with intent to evade payment of duty, penalty cannot be imposed under Rule 25 ibid. Therefore, confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, read with Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, are not in conformity with the statutory provisions. - Decided in favour of appellant - E/52205/2014 Ex .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ises of appellant on 24.11.2011, the Central Excise Officers detected that daily stock account was not available in the factory. For non-availability of such record, the Central Excise Officers seized the goods and subsequently issued the SCN dated 23.05.2011, seeking confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The SCN was adjudicated in confiscating the goods and also imposing penalty 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

he Central Excise Rules, has not been maintained by the appellant is factually incorrect inasmuch as the appellant maintained the daily production account and entered the manufacturing particulars therein. According to him, on the date of visit of the Central Excise Officers, the daily stock account was available in the office of Chartered Accountant who took the said register for the purpose of preparation VAT returns. He further submits that maintenance of records by the appellant has also bee .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

paragraph 3.2, wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has categorically recorded that there is no clandestine clearance of the goods from the factory of the appellant. To substantiate his stand that penalty cannot be imposed in the facts of this case, the Ld. Advocate has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in the case of CCE vs Saurasthra Cement Ltd, [2010 (260) ELT 71 (Guj)] and Supreme Industries Ltd. vs CESTAT, New Delhi, [2007 (214) ELT 187 (MP)]. 3. Per Contra, Sh. M S Negi, 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

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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