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 Chennai Upholds Decision Rejecting Revenue's Appeal on Suppression of Duty Amount</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHENNAI-I Versus TAMILNADU PETRO PRODUCTS LTD.</h3> The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI upheld the decision rejecting the Revenue's appeal, affirming that the demand for a specific amount could not be ... Demand - Suppression of facts Issues:1. Recovery of credit and duty based on show-cause notices.2. Adjudication by Commissioner of Central Excise.3. Disallowance of credit by Assistant Commissioner.4. Appeal by Revenue against dropping of demand.5. Withdrawal of certificate by Range Superintendent.6. Finding of suppression and its impact on recovery.Analysis:1. The case involved two show-cause notices issued to the respondent, one for the recovery of credit and the other for the recovery of duty. The Commissioner of Central Excise adjudicated the notices, finding suppression of facts regarding an agreement between the supplier and the buyer for the collection of transfer charges. The Commissioner accepted that no suppression was involved in the remaining amount.2. A single show-cause notice was issued proposing the recovery of duty based on a certificate issued by the Range Superintendent. The Assistant Commissioner disallowed the credit as the certificate had been withdrawn. The proceedings for the recovery of the remaining amount were dropped due to the absence of suppression during that period.3. The Revenue appealed against the dropping of the demand for the remaining amount, but the appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenue then filed an appeal before the Tribunal challenging the decision.4. The Tribunal considered the consolidated certificate issued for a specific period covering both amounts. It was noted that the finding of suppression leading to the withdrawal of the certificate was only in relation to one specific duty amount. As the finding of suppression for the remaining period was set aside by the Commissioner, the demand for that amount could not be sustained.5. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order and rejected the Revenue's appeal, affirming that the demand for the specific amount could not be maintained against the respondents based on the findings of suppression and withdrawal of the certificate.This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI highlights the key issues, adjudication process, findings, and the final decision regarding the recovery of credit and duty based on show-cause notices and the impact of suppression on the demand for specific amounts.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
