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 →

Kisan Sahakari Chini Mills Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut

2016 (11) TMI 354 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Clandestine removal of molasses for open market sale - Held that:- When appellant contended that shortage might be due to some fault of employee, the factum that it was not within his knowledge, consent or approval was also to be proved by appellant. Even otherwise, if shortage was due to some negligence on the part of employee, the employee is also an agent of appellant, for any act committed by employee, appellant, being principal is responsible. - Hence in present case, onus to prove that .....

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 and, therefore, question 1 is also answered against appellant. - Central Excise Appeal No. 21 of 2010 - Dated:- 11-7-2016 - Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal And Hon'ble Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, JJ. For the Appellant : Shakeel Ahmad For the Respondent : S. P. Kesarwani,Vks Raghuvanshi ORDER 1. Heard Sri Shakeel Ahmad, learned Counsel for appellant and Sri Krishna Agrawal for respondent. 2. This appeal under Section 35-G of Central Excise Act has arisen from judgment and order dated 27.7.2009 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e was noticed? (ii) Whether upon the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in absence of any evidence of clandestine removal of open market sale, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the condonation to the extent of 2% of the stock of 12972 qtls. stored in Tank No.2?" 4. Sri Shakeel Ahmad, learned Counsel for appellant, contended that there was no evidence whatsoever to show that there was a clandestine removal of molasses for open market sale inasmuch as no short .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

agent, who were in the capacity to remove molasses. Appellant did not dispute actual shortage but tried to explain shortage in the grounds of appeal filed before Commissioner (Appeals) that shortage was due to some miscreant employees of the factory, who may have left the valve connected with the tank open and pipe line near molasses weighment tank. This explanation shows that shortage in molasses was not seriously disputed by appellant and instead it tried to explain that shortage was on accoun .....

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