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 →

Commr. of CGST-Bolpur Versus M/s. C.P. Ispat Pvt. Ltd., Sri Naresh Kumar Sharma, M/s. Jaishree Steels Pvt. Ltd., Sri Shyam Bihari Makharia, Director

2018 (1) TMI 370 - CESTAT KOLKATA

Clandestine removal - Sponge iron - credibility of the documentary evidence on which demand was raised - Held that: - the Department could not adduce any evidence to establish the clandestine removal of goods without payment of duty. There is no dispute that the assessee admitted the clearance of the goods - the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act on the appellant company is justified. - Penalty on Director - Held that: - the Director of the assessee company ha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Halder, A. C. ( A. R. ) & A. K. Biswas, Supdt. ( A. R. ) For Respondent ORDER Per Shri P. K. Choudhary Briefly stated the facts of the Appeal Nos.E/76775/2017 (C.O.-76173/2017) and E/76713/2017 are that M/s. C.P. Ispat Private Limited, the Assessee is engaged in the manufacture of Sponge Iron classifiable under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On 27.05.2014, the Central Excise Officers of Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI), Kolkata searched the Facto .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the goods without payment of duty and deposited a Cheque of ₹ 20.00 Lacs admitting the duty liability. A Show Cause Notice dated 26.05.2015 was issued proposing demand of duty along with interest and to impose penalty on the assessee and Shri Naresh Kumar Sharma, Director of the assessee company. The Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty of ₹ 20,01,848.00 along with interest and imposed penalty of equal amount of duty on the assessee and also imposed a penalty 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

s herein. 2) Heard both sides and perused the appeals records. 3) I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that there is no evidence of charge of clandestine removal of the goods against the assessee and it s Director and therefore penalties were set aside. It is observed that the credibility of the documentary evidence on which demand was raised would be disputed on various grounds. According to the Commissioner (Appeals) there is a dispute on the place of seizure of the documents as to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n cleared from the factory of the assessee without issuing the Central Excise Invoices, is not under dispute. Therefore, there is no need to go into the facts of recovery of the said documents. In my considered view, the chart of Cash Sales is a primary evidence for clandestine removal of the said goods and therefore I am unable to agree with the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act is justified. I find that th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

re and clearances of M.S. Billet classifiable under Chapter 72 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On 27.05.2014 the Officers of Director General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI), Kolkata Zonal Unit searched the factory and office premises of the assessee and recovered various documents/records. It was found that the assessee cleared the M.S.Billet without payment of duty. Sri Shyam Bihari Makharia, Director of the assessee company after going through the seized d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

₹ 5.00 lacs on Shri Shyam Bihari Makharia, Director of the appellant company and also appropriated the amount of duty of ₹ 19,64,078/- has deposited by the assessee. By the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confirmation of duty alongwith interest and modified the adjudication order to the extent that the penalty imposed on the assessee and it s Director are set aside. Hence the Revenue filed these appeals for imposition of penalty on the assessee and it s Director .....

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