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 emphasizes evidence in duty cases, sets aside penalties, confirms unregistered clearances</h1> <h3>Raman Ispat P. Ltd. and others Versus CCE, Meerut-I</h3> Raman Ispat P. Ltd. and others Versus CCE, Meerut-I - TMI Issues:1. Duty paid scrap and sponge iron shortages2. Clandestine clearances via parallel invoices3. Clearances not reflected in RG-1 register4. Confirmation of demand, interest, and penalty5. Imposition of penalties on appellantsAnalysis:Issue 1: Duty paid scrap and sponge iron shortagesThe appellant, engaged in manufacturing MS ingots and girders, faced shortages of duty paid scrap and sponge iron during a visit by Central Excise officers. The officers suspected that final products were cleared without duty payment due to the shortages. The appellant deposited the duty amount on the shortages. The Chief Accountant explained the shortages as possibly due to faulty accounting procedures, but the Revenue confirmed the duty demand based on the shortages. The Tribunal found no evidence of clandestine clearances beyond the shortages detected during the visit, emphasizing the need for tangible proof to substantiate such charges.Issue 2: Clandestine clearances via parallel invoicesThe officers discovered a parallel invoice not entered in the RG-1 register, indicating clearances to a customer. The appellant's explanation of order cancellation by the customer lacked supporting evidence. The absence of invoice cancellation and department intimation led to the confirmation of duty demand related to these clearances. The Tribunal upheld this confirmation along with interest and penalty, emphasizing the appellant's obligation to follow proper procedures even in case of order cancellations.Issue 3: Clearances not reflected in RG-1 registerAnother instance involved clearances not reflected in the RG-1 register, leading to suspicions of clandestine clearances. The Tribunal upheld the duty demand related to these clearances, as documentary evidence supported the Revenue's claims. The appellant's excuse of a new excise person's invoicing practice was deemed unsubstantiated without evidence, resulting in the confirmation of demand, interest, and penalty.Issue 4: Confirmation of demand, interest, and penaltyThe proceedings initiated against the appellants proposed confirmation of duty demands for various discrepancies, including shortages and unregistered clearances. The Addl. Commissioner's order confirmed the duty demands and imposed penalties, which were upheld in part by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal set aside the demand related to shortages but confirmed demands linked to unregistered clearances, imposing penalties accordingly. The appellants were given an option to reduce penalties by timely payment.Issue 5: Imposition of penalties on appellantsPenalties were imposed on the appellants responsible for the day-to-day operations of the manufacturing unit. However, the penalties lacked specific allegations with evidence of their involvement in clandestine clearances. Since a significant portion of the demand against the main appellant was set aside, penalties on the other appellants were deemed unjustified and were consequently set aside. The appeals of these appellants were allowed based on this reasoning.In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment addressed various issues concerning duty shortages, unregistered clearances, and penalties, emphasizing the importance of concrete evidence in substantiating charges of clandestine activities and proper adherence to excise procedures.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
