Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2018 (4) TMI 719

Excise invoices and used the same for unaccounted production of ingots and thereafter removed the same clandestinely during the period September, 2010 to December 2010. - Held that: - allegations are based on statement of Director of AIPL, statement of transporters, whole case is made out against the appellant. There is no documents recovered from AIPL wherein it is stated that goods were cleared to the appellants. Further in the course of inquiry at the end of appellant, no such corroboration of receipt of alleged sponge iron was found. - Neither the Director of AIPL nor the transporters were examined in the adjudication proceedings, relating to the present case. - There is no evidence worthwhile against the appellant except as .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

o have been cleared clandestinely and transported from AIPL to the appellants factory, on the basis of details available in material gate passes seized from Shri Bidur Gupta, Peon of AIPL. There are about 17 such material gate passes wherein different truck number s, description of the goods, net quantity are mentioned under the column of transporters name like, Sunny, Alam, Guddu etc. are mentioned. On further investigation s of raw material sponge iron cleared from AIPL, was compared with the purchase register of the appellant, and it was found that there is no such entry as regards the receipt of alleged quantity of sponge iron. Accordingly, it appeared to Revenue that appellant surreptitiously procured the aforementioned quantity of spo .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

riate rate. They further propose d penalty on Shri Ghansi Ram Agarwal under Rule 26. 4. In reply, the appellants categorically denied the allegation in the show cause notice. However, the proposed demand was confirmed with interest and further equal amount of penalty was imposed under section 11AC (1) (C). Further penalty under Rule 25 was dropped. Further penalty of ₹ 1,50,000/ - was imposed on Shri Ghansi Ram Agarwal under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules. 5. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred the appeal before learned Commissioner Appeals) who was pleased to dismiss the appeal upholding the adjudication order. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 7. Learned Counsel informed that appeal of authorized si .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

Learned AR appearing for the Revenue supports the impugned order relying on the allegations and findings therein. He relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Arvind Enterprises vs. CCE, Delhi [2015 (327) ELT 353 (Tri - Del)] wherein Arvind Enterprises was a dealer who had procured cenvatable invoices from one M/s. Haryana Steel and Alloys Ltd. (HSAL for short), GT Ro ad, PO Engineering College, Sonepat, indulged in clandestine removal of goods to certain manufacturers located elsewhere and engaged in fraudulent issuance of cenvatable invoices without dispatching any goods to M/s. Advance Engineers, Faridabad. In investigation, these facts came to the notice of the Revenue and the proprietor of M/s. Advance Engineers in his sta .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||