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 →

M/s Bhilai Auxiliary Industries Versus CCE, Raipur

Shortage of finished goods and raw material - clandestine removal - Held that: - the appellant has not been able to prove that there was no shortage of finished goods and they did not clear the said goods clandestinely without payment of duty - Once the Chief Executive officer of the appellant assessee viz. Shri D.G.K. Nair admitted the shortage and appellant assessee paid the duty for the goods found short voluntarily, the plea of the appellant now that there was no shortage does not have sound .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Auxiliary Industries is in appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.53/2014 dated 19.5.2014 whereunder duty of ₹ 1,66,551/- along with equivalent penalty has been confirmed. 2. The brief facts are that: (i) The appellant is a manufacturer of steel pipes and tubes falling under Central Excise Tariff Heading No. 73061029. (ii) On 24.12.2011, during verification of stocks of finished goods and raw material (inputs) lying in the factory premises of the appellant, shortage of finished goods on 36.750 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eal, the appellant is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Both sides represented by ld. Counsels, Shri Abhishek Jaju and Shri G.R. Singh, have been heard. 4. The ld. Advocate for the appellant pleads that admission of the chief executive officer itself cannot have evidentiary value and the charge cannot be sustained merely on that basis. He cited in support the Hon ble Allahabad High Court decision in the case of Continental Cement Company Vs Union of India - 2014 (309) ELT 411 (All.). 5. Afte .....

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 does not have sound footing. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE Vs. Systems & Components Pvt. Ltd. - 2004 (165) ELT 136 (SC) observed that it is basic and settled law that what is admitted need not be proved. The Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Bajrang Petro Chemicals (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2015 (317) ELT 243 has observed as under : 10. We heard both the parties at length and gone through the materials available on record. From the record, it appears that there was a huge .....

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