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 upholds duty demand, penalty, interest based on employee statements, stock verification. Manager's penalty set aside.</h1> <h3>RK ISPAT UDYOG Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., RAIPUR</h3> The Tribunal upheld the duty demand, penalty, interest, and redemption fine based on employee statements and stock verification, dismissing the ... Clandestine removal – Alleged that appellant have shown the production of MS Square Bar by manipulating the quantity of 130 MT in their record with intention to clear the goods at nil rate of duty – After considering the fact authority allow the appeal with consequential relief Issues:Appeals against order-in-appeal dated 7-11-2003 upholding duty demand, penalty, interest, and redemption fine.Analysis:1. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing iron & steel products, paid duty under Compounded Levy Scheme until 1-4-2000. A CBEC Circular allowed duty-free clearance of opening stock as of 1-4-2000. However, discrepancies were found during a visit, leading to a demand of duty, penalty, and fines.2. The appellants argued that overtime was paid for increased production on specific dates, supported by records not considered during employee statements. They challenged the stock verification method and cited case laws to support their stance.3. The Department reiterated the employees' statements denying extra shifts and defended the stock verification process. The Tribunal found the employees' statements consistent and unretracted, dismissing the relevance of additional evidence provided by the appellants.4. The Tribunal upheld the duty demand based on employees' statements and rejected the appellants' claim of eye estimation during stock verification. It distinguished cited case laws as inapplicable due to specific circumstances.5. The Tribunal concluded that the duty demand and confiscation were justified based on employee statements and stock verification by the Manager. The penalty on the Manager was set aside as he acted under instructions, leading to the rejection of one appeal and the allowance of the other.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
