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 demand for clandestine goods removal due to missing invoices, partner's penalty deemed unnecessary</h1> <h3>F Tech Engineering Co., Jignesh Pambhar Versus C.C.E. & S.T., Rajkot</h3> F Tech Engineering Co., Jignesh Pambhar Versus C.C.E. & S.T., Rajkot - TMI Issues:1. Alleged evasion of Excise duty through clandestine clearance of finished goods and wrongful exemption claim under notification 12/2012.2. Confirmation of demand for clandestine removal of goods and penalty imposition.3. Imposition of penalty on the partner of the appellant.Analysis:1. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing pumps & pump sets, were accused of evading Excise duty through clandestine clearance of goods and wrongly availing exemption under notification 12/2012. An enquiry was conducted based on intelligence, leading to a Show Cause Notice. The Adjudication Authority dropped the demand related to the exemption but confirmed a demand of &8377; 1,20,465 against clandestine removal, with a corresponding penalty. The Commissioner (Appeal) upheld this decision, prompting the present appeals.2. The appellant's counsel argued that the demand was based solely on delivery challans and statements of two buyers, without proper correlation with invoices. It was contended that only buyers admitting to the purchase should be held accountable. The absence of reconciliation between challans and invoices was highlighted. The Revenue's representative reiterated the findings, emphasizing confessional statements admitting to goods clearance without invoices. The Tribunal upheld the demand, noting the lack of evidence for goods cleared under invoices, indicating clandestine removal and non-payment of excise duty.3. Regarding the penalty imposed on the partner of the appellant, the Tribunal referenced a previous judgment stating that once the partnership firm is penalized, a separate penalty against the partner is not warranted. Accordingly, the appeal related to F Tech Engineering Co. was dismissed, while the appeal by Shri Jignesh Pambhar was allowed.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the demand for clandestine removal of goods due to the absence of invoices for cleared goods, leading to non-payment of excise duty. The penalty imposed on the partner was deemed unnecessary after penalizing the firm, following established legal precedent.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
