Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad Versus Adinath Concast Pvt. Ltd.

2017 (5) TMI 940 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Clandestine removal - demand - Held that: - the first appellate authority has failed to consider the fact that the respondent has not paid the amount of duty calculated on the basis of electricity consumption as per report of Prof Batra, IIT, Kanpur and the first appellate authority has not come to a definite conclusion on the basis of evidence produced by the appellant with the case of meritable proceedings - demand needs to be set aside - appeal rejected - decided against Revenue. - E/1886/10 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

epresentation from the respondent. 4. Learned D.R. reiterates the Grounds of Appeal. 5. On perusal of records I find that the first appellate authority has set aside the order-in-original vide which there was confirmed demand with interest and appropriation of an amount against the confirmed demand and penalties as well imposed on the main respondent and 2 other respondents. It is noticed from the records that a show-cause notice dated 05.03.2009 was issued for demand of duty for the period Janu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lable on records. From the records, I find that the appeal has been filed by main notice i.e. appellant No.1 and by all the co-noticee i.e. appellant no.2 & 3 against order-in-original No.32/CEX/JC/2010 dated 25.03.2010 passed by the respondent. The crucial point raised by the appellant no.1 is that a show-cause notice under F.No. Prev/VII/Gr.III/Adinath/39/2008 dated 15.05.2008 was issued to the appellant no.1 demanding duty for the period April - 2005 to March - 2008 alleging clandestine c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

uary 2008 which is already covered in the show-cause notice dated 15.05.2008. I find that this plea of multiple proceedings for same period needs certain attention. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad issued demand dated 15.05.2008 on basis of average electricity consumption during the period under dispute. It means the total possible quantity that appellant no.1 would have manufactured during the said period was covered by way of theoretical calculation. The demand so raised .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

otice dated 05.03.2009 was other than the quantity already covered by the show-cause notice dated 15.05.2008 duty on which was already confirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad vide order-in-original No.73/2009 dated 28.08.2009. Even care should have been taken at the time of issuance of show-cause notice dated 05.03.2009. Until it is proved that the quantities in both the show-cause notices are different, the demand raised in 2nd show-cause notice covering the same .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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