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

2015 (9) TMI 1475 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2015 (9) TMI 1475 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - TMI - 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

3 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

premises of M/s Rachna Metal Industries, the 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the first stage dealer M/s Rachna Metal Industries 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 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

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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