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>Revenue's Appeal Dismissed in Excise Case | Key Issues: Final Order, Clandestine Clearance, SSI Exemption</h1> <h3>Principal Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Ludhiana Versus M/s KC Pipes Private Limited</h3> Principal Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Ludhiana Versus M/s KC Pipes Private Limited - TMI Issues:1. Appeal against CESTAT order under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. Sustainability of the final order under the law.3. Perversity in the impugned order.4. Validity of holding KCKL as not a dummy firm.5. Reliability of a deceased person's statement in the case.6. Compliance with parameters for substantiating charge of clandestine clearance by DST.7. Threshold limit for SSI exemption in clandestine removal charge.Analysis:The judgment involves an appeal filed by the Revenue against a CESTAT order under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The key issues raised include the sustainability of the final order in the eyes of the law and whether the impugned order is liable to be set aside due to perversity. The Court considered the validity of holding KCKL as not a dummy firm, emphasizing the lack of documentary evidence supporting the claim. Additionally, the reliance on a deceased person's statement, corroborating documentary evidence, was questioned regarding its admissibility. The Tribunal's decision on complying with parameters for clandestine clearance charge by DST was scrutinized, focusing on the evidence provided by the Revenue.Furthermore, the Court examined whether the Tribunal correctly assessed the threshold limit for SSI exemption in the case of clandestine removal charge. The judgment detailed the facts of the case, highlighting the respondent Company's alleged involvement in clandestine clearances to evade excise duty. After multiple rounds of litigation, the CESTAT set aside the Adjudicating Authority's order and allowed the appeal, leading to the present appeal by the Revenue. The Court noted the application seeking withdrawal of the appeal based on revised monetary limits for filing appeals and the personal penalty amount being below the threshold limit. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the application and supporting affidavit filed by the appellant-Revenue.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
