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

2016 (10) TMI 738 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

2016 (10) TMI 738 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD - TMI - Evasion of Central Excise Duty - search of premises - removal of goods without payment of duty - confiscation of goods with an option to pay redemption fine - imposition of penalty - legality of Redemption Fine and penalty imposed - Held that: - Once the amount payable under Cenvat Credit Rules is held as duty of excise, the inputs and capital goods removed without payment of amount on duty from the factory of the first appellant shall be treated to h .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r any interference. - Confiscation of the goods and imposition of redemption fine in lieu of confiscation and imposition of penalty upheld - quantum of redemption fine and penalty reduced - appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/11476,11480,11482/2013 - ORDER No. A/11096-11098/2016 - Dated:- 7-10-2016 - Mr. P. M. Saleem, Hon'ble Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Shri Mukund Chauhan, Consultant For the Respondent : Shri S. N. Gohil, Authorised Repr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ts are a partnership firm. The first appellant is a Central Excise registered unit is engaged in manufacturing of Umbrella Frames falling under Chapter 66; the second appellant is manufacturing Tube on job work basis for the first appellant; and the third appellant is a godown premises belonging to the same partnership firm. All the three are located at separate and different addresses, but at Umbergaon, District Valsad. On the basis of intelligence that appellants are indulging in evasion of Ce .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

8377; 11,69,500/- from CENVAT credit account and ₹ 3,17,748/- through GAR-7, challan towards CENVAT credit involved in the said raw materials and capital goods which were removed without reversing credit/ without payment of duty and without issuing central excise invoices. The department seized the said raw materials and capital goods found in the premises of second and third appellants. Subsequently, department issued a show cause notice seeking to confiscate the goods valued at ₹ 1 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hird appellant and imposed penalty of ₹ 12,00,000/- under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the first appellant. No penalty was imposed on the other two appellants and partners of the appellant firms, though proposed in show cause notice. Aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original, all the three appellants filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), who by the impugned OIA upheld the order of confiscation of the goods seized at the premises of the second and third appellants a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

imposed, is not proper and should be set-aside. 4. On careful consideration of the submissions of both sides and perusal of the records, we find that the first appellant had undisputedly availed CENVAT credit f the duty paid on the raw material and capital goods and removed the same from the registered premises without reversing the credit/ without payment of duty and without issuing Central Excise invoices and challans. It is not disputed that the inputs or capital goods on removal, after takin .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ayable under Cenvat Credit Rules is held as duty of excise, the inputs and capital goods removed without payment of amount on duty from the factory of the first appellant shall be treated to have been removed without payment of duty, making the same liable to confiscation under Rule 25(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 5. In view of the above, the liability of the goods for confiscation (and redemption fine in lieu), and liability to penalty for the appellants, are established. The appellant .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ase of CCE & Cus. vs. Saurashtra Cement Limited 2010 (260) ELT 71 (Guj.), facts are entirely different and the issue was imposition of penalty. In the case of Subhlaxmi Syntex Pvt. Limited vs. CCE, Daman 2011 (264) ELT 547 (Tri. Ahmd.) it was the question of temporary removal and storage. In the case of Baroda Conductors P. Limited vs. CCE, Daman 2009 (245) ELT 837 (Tri. Ahmd.)- copper rods/ bars sent by Unit-I to Unit-II of the appellant were in excess of the recorded balance and reasons fo .....

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