Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Mamta Steel India Pvt. Ltd. & Shri Lal Padmakar Singh, Director of Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad

2017 (11) TMI 702 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD

Clandestine removal - shortage of ingots - determination of weight by eye estimation and not by actual weightment - burden of prove - Held that: - invoices with same numbers such are Invoice No.26 was issued on various dated such as 01.11.2011, 02.11.2011, 03.11.2011, 04.11.2011, 05.11.2011 and 06.11.2011 indicating various quantities of ingots cleared and similar situation was in Invoice No.27 or Invoice No.28 etc. Further, in the invoice book mentioned at Serial No.8 of Annexure A, Invoice No. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ent(s) ORDER Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar Present both appeals are directed against Order-in-Appeal No.394-395-CE/APPL-LKO/LKO/2015 dated 14.10.2015 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Lucknow. Since both appeals are arising out of same impugned Order-in-Appeal, they are taken together for decision. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the M/s Mamta Steel India Pvt. Ltd (M/s Mamta) was engaged in manufacture of MS Ingots, falling under Tariff Item No. 72061090 of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cord a show cause notice was issued to both the appellants being show cause notice dated 22.03.2013 wherein invoice wise details of invoices issued was given in the form of a chart after Para No.5 of the said show cause notice. It was alleged in the said show cause notice that M/s Mamta had indulged in receipt of uncounted raw materials and in suppression of production and clandestine removal of finished goods by resorting to issue of forged invoices with the intention to evade Central Excise Du .....

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 appellant. The issue was adjudicated through Order-in-Original dated 02.01.2015. The Original Authority confirmed both the demands and imposed equal penalty on M/s Mamta. Further equal penalty was also imposed on other appellant Shri Lal Padmakar Singh under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Aggrieved by the said order appellants preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). Learned Commissioner (Appeals) decided appeals through impugned Order-in-Appeal. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) 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

hat as discussed earlier the Department has discharged the initial burden of proof by discovering the forged and parallel invoice book. In view of such finding learned Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed both the appeals filed before him. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeals are filed before this Tribunal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants who has made following submissions:- (i) The weight of MS Ingots was determined by eye estimation and not by actual weightment and, ther .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

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


|| 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