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 overturns Appeals Commissioner decision, directs re-examination of evidence in duty demand case</h1> <h3>HILUCK POLYESTER PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., DELHI-V</h3> The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order. The Tribunal found the Original Authority's order following its ... Demand - Shortage and excess of raw materials and finished goods Issues:1. Duty demand and penalties regarding shortage of raw materials and excess finished goods.2. Confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine.3. Consideration of evidence and remand order by the Tribunal.Analysis:Issue 1: Duty demand and penalties regarding shortage of raw materials and excess finished goodsThe case involved the appellant, engaged in manufacturing P.V.C. pipes, availing Cenvat credit on inputs. Central Excise Officers conducted stock verification, finding shortages of raw materials and excess finished goods. Duty demands were made, penalties imposed, and confiscation of goods ordered. The Tribunal initially set aside the order, remanding the matter for re-adjudication.Issue 2: Confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fineIn the subsequent de novo proceedings, the Original Authority dropped the duty demand related to the shortage on one date but confirmed it for another date, along with imposing penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) modified the order, ordering confiscation of goods and imposing a redemption fine. The appellant appealed against this decision.Issue 3: Consideration of evidence and remand order by the TribunalThe Tribunal noted the appellant's defense that the consumed raw materials resulted in the excess finished goods, supported by private records. The Tribunal found a lapse in not considering the evidence submitted by the appellant. The Tribunal directed a re-examination of the evidence by the Original Authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to address this aspect, leading to the setting aside of their order.In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal found that the Original Authority's order following the Tribunal's directions was appropriate. The Commissioner (Appeals) had not addressed the evidence and direction properly, leading to the restoration of the Original Authority's order. The appeal by the Appellant was allowed, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
