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>Appeal allowed based on valid guidelines, lack of evidence, and audit issues.</h1> <h3>RAM STEEL ROLLING & FORGING MILLS Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI-II</h3> The appeal was allowed as the court found the Ministry of Steel guidelines supporting the 10% burning loss claim valid, and the lack of evidence to ... Demand Issues involved: Appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order upholding original authority's de novo order regarding differential duty demand for burning loss in manufacturing rerollable products.Facts: Six show cause notices issued for duty demand from June 1985 to August 1990, totaling Rs. 3,88,718.71, based on audit objections.Issue: Appellant claims 10% burning loss in raw materials for rerollable products manufacturing, citing Ministry of Steel guidelines. Central Excise authorities challenge 10% loss as high, referring to CBEC circular allowing scrutiny for losses over 1%.Judgment: Ministry of Steel guidelines considered valid technical opinion, while CBEC circular mandates scrutiny for losses over 1%. Lack of evidence to disallow 10% burning loss claim, especially as demands were based on audit objections without investigation. Appellant's reduction of burning loss to 7-8% post-2001 noted.Decision: Appeal allowed, demand deemed unsustainable.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
