TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
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 orders in goods removal case, remands matter due to pending show cause notice.</h1> <h3>Jawala Steel Corporation Versus CCE Delhi-IV, Vaishno Steels Versus CCE Delhi-IV, Avon Steels India Versus CCE Delhi-IV, Arvind Tiwari Authorised Signatory of Versus CCE Delhi-IV, A.G. Brothers Ltd Versus CCE Delhi-IV, Goyal Steels Versus CCE Delhi-IV, Hem Prakahs Goyal Director of Versus CCE Delhi-IV, Bharat Bhushan Ahuja Versus CCE Delhi-IV, Nippon Engineering Corporation Versus CCE Delhi-IV</h3> The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders in a case involving allegations of clandestine removal of goods against multiple applicants, including M/s. ... Penalty u/r 26 of the CER, 2002 - clandestine removal of goods - duty paying invoices - Held that: - As the proceedings against M/s. Jawala Steel Corpn. against whom the allegations of clandestine removal of goods is there and same has not been adjudicated by the adjudicating authority therefore, imposing penalty against the appellants before me is pre-mature - matter remanded back to the adjudicating authority to adjudicate these matters also along with the cases of M/s. Jawala Steel Corpn. - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues Involved:Proceedings against multiple applicants for alleged clandestine removal of goods, imposition of penalties under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, stay petitions, pending show cause notice against a company, setting aside impugned orders, remanding the matter back to the adjudicating authority, disposal of appeals and stay petitions.Analysis:The case involved proceedings against multiple applicants, including M/s. Jawala Steel Corporation, for the alleged clandestine removal of goods. Penalties were imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The applicants sought a stay of the demand and penalty and requested the disposal of the appeals. During the proceedings, it was noted that a show cause notice issued by the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCI) to M/s. Jawala Steel Corporation was still pending for adjudication. Therefore, it was deemed premature to impose penalties against the appellants at that stage.The judicial member highlighted that since the allegations of clandestine removal of goods against M/s. Jawala Steel Corporation had not been adjudicated by the relevant authority, imposing penalties against the appellants before him would be premature. The Tribunal had previously taken a similar stance in the case of M/s. Jawala Steel Corporation. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority to adjudicate on these issues in conjunction with the cases of M/s. Jawala Steel Corporation.In conclusion, the appeals and stay petitions were disposed of in the manner described above, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive adjudication of the allegations against M/s. Jawala Steel Corporation before imposing penalties on the other appellants involved in the case.
TaxTMI 
