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 →

M/s Steel Authority of India Limited Versus CCE, Raipur

2018 (2) TMI 791 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Difference in the stock vis-a-vis RG-I - Revenue submits that 2% norm is prescribed and it will have to be followed. However, he accepts that somewhere the loss was below 2% - Held that: - it appears that 2% limit prescribed by the Board is on estimate basis and it is a guiding factor. By looking the chart in another year, the loss was somewhere below the 1%. If the average will be taken it will go on minor side. - Specially when the assessee is a Public Sector Undertaking and no individual .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, Central Excise & Customs, Raipur. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a Public Sector Undertaking and engaged in the manufacture of various steel items which attracts the Central Excise duty as per the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the period 1997-98, on stock verification, it was found that there was a difference in the stock vis-a-vis RG-I. So, for the difference, the department has demanded the Central Excise duty. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cumulated in one year and in the year under consideration it has exceed the limit of 2%. Lastly, he submits that this is the practice of the industry and difference is permissible as stated in the Board circular. 4. On the other hand, Sh. M. R. Sharma, ld. AR appearing for the Revenue submits that 2% norm is prescribed and it will have to be followed. However, he accepts that somewhere the loss was below 2%. 5. By considering the rival submission and on perusal of record, it appears that 2% limi .....

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 from 31.3.1998 to 31.3.2001. The Revenue has issued the show cause notice on the belief that Section 11A is not applicable for demands made under Rule 223A. The Department s view is not correct in terms of the judicial pronouncements cited by the appellants. There is no allegation that the appellants have removed goods in clandestine manner. Moreover, the stock taking was done by the appellants themselves. The departmental officers only associated with the same. Hence, the stock taking cannot .....

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