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 order-in-appeal for duty evasion, penalties imposed</h1> <h3>M/s Shubhlabh Offset Pvt. Ltd., Sh. Satish Goyal Versus CCE, Indore</h3> M/s Shubhlabh Offset Pvt. Ltd., Sh. Satish Goyal Versus CCE, Indore - TMI Issues:- Appeal against order-in-appeal regarding Central Excise Duty exemption and alleged clandestine removal of goods.Analysis:1. The appeals were filed against the order-in-appeal by the assessee-Appellants, who were engaged in manufacturing paper boxes and wrappers attracting Central Excise Duty and availing SSI Exemption. The Department suspected that the appellants were manipulating bills to evade duty after allegedly exceeding the SSI limit of Rs. 1 crore. A search was conducted, and statements were recorded, leading to a demand for duty and penalties, including on the Director.2. The counsel for the appellants argued that the Department's case was solely based on computer-generated information and insufficiently examined various aspects like raw material quantity, production factors, and financial transactions. They contended that the Department's chart was a production planning chart, not reflecting actual production or sales. The appellants maintained that penalties were unjustified, turnover was within the SSI limit, and cross-examination was not permitted.3. The Department, represented by the learned DR, supported the impugned order, citing statements from the Director and a buyer indicating goods were cleared without duty payment. They argued against the appellants' claims regarding the nature of computer-generated data and the lack of registers for raw materials and stock.4. The Tribunal, after considering the facts, found the Department's case primarily reliant on computer data. Disagreeing with the appellants' characterization of the data as production planning, the Tribunal noted admissions by the Director and a buyer regarding actual values and duty evasion. The absence of proper records hindered verification of actual production, suggesting deliberate underreporting to stay within the SSI limit.5. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing both appeals due to the lack of grounds for interference, as the evidence pointed towards underreporting and evasion of duty by the appellants. The decision was pronounced on 21.02.2018, sustaining the penalties and duty demands imposed by the Department.
TaxTMI 