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. Mardia Alloys Versus C.C.E. Delhi

2015 (9) TMI 1475 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - second stage dealer - brass pipes - copper ingots - Held that: - there was no movement of goods in the chain of supply from the manufacture to the ultimate buyer, who availed the fraudulent cenvat credit of Central Excise duty indicated in the invoices. The appellant has also not specifically provided any evidence to counter the allegation of the Central Excise Department that the disputed goods have been received by it and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n penalty of ₹ 2,404,902/- imposed on the appellant under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 in the Adjudication Order dated 7.8.2012 has been upheld. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a second stage dealer duly registered with the Central Excise Department for purchase and sale of brass pipes. During the disputed period, the appellant claimed that they had purchased brass pipes from M/s Rachna Metal Industries (first stage dealer) who in turn purchase the same f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

first stage dealer and during the course of investigation they found out that instead of brass pipes, the said first stage dealer had supplied the copper ingots to the present appellant. There is no evidence on record to show that the appellant had purchased brass pipes instead of copper ingots as claimed by the first stage dealer. The investigation conducted by the Central Excise Officials culminated in the adjudication order wherein the penalty was imposed on the appellant as well as on the f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

stries and supplied the same to the ultimate consignee, imposition of penalty invoking the provisions of Rule 25 is not proper. 3. Per Contra, Sh. R K Mishra the Ld. DR appearing for the Respondent reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order and submits that since the goods, in question, have not arising out of any manufacturing process in the factory of V K Metal Works, the supply of the same to the first stage dealer and subsequently to the second stage dealer, fascinating to the ul .....

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