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>Court upholds excise duty demand on cement factory, finds clandestine removal, reduces penalty.</h1> <h3>ALAGAPPA CEMENTS PVT. LTD. Versus CEGAT, CHENNAI</h3> ALAGAPPA CEMENTS PVT. LTD. Versus CEGAT, CHENNAI - 2010 (260) E.L.T. 511 (Mad.) Issues:Challenge to excise duty demand based on shortage of clinkers and alleged clandestine removal of cement without duty payment.Analysis:The appellant, a cement factory, challenged an excise duty demand of Rs. 23,04,994 based on a shortage of clinkers. The appellant, a Small Scale Industry unit, availed exemption benefits under Notification No. 175 of 1986 for concessional excise duty rates. An inspection revealed discrepancies in clinker stock, leading to a show cause notice proposing duty demand, penalty, and interest. The Order-in-Original demanded Rs. 23,04,994 as duty and an equal penalty. The appellant appealed, and the first respondent partially allowed it, reducing the duty to Rs. 13,04,994. The appellant contested the order, arguing against the justification for duty imposition.The main issue focused on the abnormal shortage of clinkers leading to excess cement production allegedly clandestinely removed without duty payment. The appellant contended that the shortage did not prove clandestine removal without concrete evidence. The respondent argued that discrepancies in clinker, coke breeze, and limestone quantities supported the claim of clandestine cement removal. The original authority noted officers present during inspection and the appellant's delayed objection to stock discrepancies.The Court upheld the respondent's decision, emphasizing the lack of satisfactory explanations from the appellant regarding the significant clinker shortage. Discrepancies in raw material quantities, including limestone and coke breeze, indicated irregular stock maintenance and potential clandestine activities. The Court found the authorities' conclusion on clandestine cement production and duty evasion justified based on the evidence presented. The deletion of the penalty by the first respondent was considered a lenient gesture. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, finding no grounds for interference with the respondent's order.
TaxTMI 