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>Appeals Commissioner drops duty demand & penalty, confirms shortages, imposes penalty on respondents</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH Versus SADASHIV METALLICS LTD.</h3> COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH Versus SADASHIV METALLICS LTD. - 2006 (193) E.L.T. 199 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:1. Contesting duty demand and penalty against the respondents.2. Shortage of finished goods - alloy steel ingots.3. Shortage of raw materials - Ho Tops and Melting Scrap.4. Shortage of raw material - Ferro Chrome.5. Imposition of penalty on the respondents.Analysis:1. The appeal involved the revenue contesting the correctness of the impugned order where the Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the duty demand and penalty against the respondents. The duty demand of Rs. 50,175/- for shortage of alloy steel ingots was contested. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that after considering certain clearances not taken into account, there was virtually no shortage, especially with no evidence of clandestine removal. Thus, the duty demand against the respondents was dropped.2. Regarding the shortage of raw materials, Ho Tops and Melting Scrap, involving duties of Rs. 25,357/- and Rs. 12,687/- respectively, no plausible explanation was provided by the respondents. Consequently, the duty on both these raw materials was confirmed, and the impugned order in this regard was upheld.3. The demand of duty amounting to Rs. 2,57,951/- for the shortage of raw material, Ferro Chrome, by 59.875 m.t. was examined. The Department failed to present tangible evidence of clandestine removal by the respondents. The shortage was determined through eye examination, and the statement of Shri Ramesh Chander Garg was not considered sufficient as it lacked corroboration from the record. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) rightfully dropped this duty demand.4. As a result of the discussions and findings, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was modified. A penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the respondents. The appeal of the Revenue was disposed of accordingly, with the penalty being the final decision in the matter.
TaxTMI 