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>Tribunal confirms duty liability and dismissal of appeal for non-payment of Central Excise duty.</h1> <h3>PRESTIGE PLASTICS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TRIVANDRUM</h3> The Tribunal upheld the Department's duty determination on the appellant for alleged non-payment of Central Excise duty on goods removed prior to April ... Demand - Clandestine manufacture and removal Issues: Alleged non-payment of Central Excise duty on goods removed prior to April 99Detailed Analysis:1. The appellant, a manufacturer of Plastic Pipes, was alleged to have removed goods without paying Central Excise duty from January 99 to September 99, with a total duty evasion of Rs. 3,67,257. The dispute centered around the duty demanded on goods removed prior to April 99 (January to March 99).2. The appellant contested the duty amount of Rs. 1,65,689 not levied on Plastic Pipes, arguing that the calculations were baseless. The diary seized did not specify the quantity of pipes removed without duty payment before April 99. The appellant claimed that the show cause notice relied on the diary for duty evasion calculations, which were mere assumptions. Additionally, the appellant was not provided with the worksheet detailing duty calculations and claimed that proper deductions were not given for amounts received against clandestine sales.3. The Department justified the duty evasion calculation for January to March 99 based on the partner's statement and diary entries indicating money received for goods removed. The Department maintained that even though the diary did not specify quantities before April 1st, it showed sale proceeds received after that date. The Department contended that the duty calculation worksheet was provided with the show cause notice, and permissible deductions were already considered in the duty amount of Rs. 1,65,689.4. The Tribunal found in favor of the Department, rejecting the appellant's arguments. It upheld the duty determination based on diary entries and the partner's statement. The Tribunal agreed with the Department's position that necessary deductions were made in the duty calculation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the duty liability on the appellant for the period in question.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
