TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>CESTAT Upholds Decision on Polypropylene Confiscation and Penalties</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CUS. & C. EX., INDORE Versus SURYA KIRAN POLYPACK (P) LTD.</h3> COMMISSIONER OF CUS. & C. EX., INDORE Versus SURYA KIRAN POLYPACK (P) LTD. - 2005 (180) E.L.T. 386 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:1. Confiscation of excess polypropylene found in the factory2. Imposition of penalty on the respondentsConfiscation of Goods Issue:The central excise officers discovered an excess of 4 MT of polypropylene in the factory of the respondents, which lacked documentary evidence and was not recorded in the stock account. The Revenue argued for upholding the confiscation of the goods and imposing a penalty. However, the respondents contended that the excess polypropylene was received as inputs for manufacturing finished products. The necessary documentation for these inputs was at their head office, 35 km away, causing a delay in updating the stock account. The Commissioner (Appeals) agreed with the respondents, stating that there was no discrepancy in accounting for finished goods or goods subject to duty payment. Consequently, the Commissioner ruled against confiscation and penalty imposition.Penalty Imposition Issue:The Advocate for the respondents argued that the excess polypropylene was legitimately received as raw material for production and the delay in updating records was due to the distance between the factory and head office. The Commissioner (Appeals) concurred with this argument, emphasizing that there was no intentional evasion of duty or misrepresentation in the accounts. After evaluating both sides' submissions, the judge found the Commissioner's reasoning sound and justified. Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, upholding the decision to drop the confiscation of the goods and penalty against the respondents.In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, centered on the confiscation of excess polypropylene in the factory and the imposition of penalties on the respondents. The Tribunal, after considering arguments from both parties, upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to reject the confiscation and penalty imposition. The ruling emphasized the importance of proper documentation and the legitimate use of raw materials in manufacturing processes, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.
TaxTMI 