TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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 affirms duty, penalty, confiscation, and redemption fine in appeal dismissal.</h1> The Tribunal upheld the lower authority's decision, rejecting the appeals and affirming the duty imposition, penalties, and confiscation with a redemption ... Demand - Clandestine removal Issues:Challenge to order-in-appeal rejecting appeal against order-in-original, imposition of duty, penalty, confiscation, redemption fine.Analysis:The appellants challenged the order-in-appeal that rejected their appeal against the order-in-original passed by the Additional Commissioner. The order-in-original imposed duty of Rs. 1,16,163 on appellant No. 1, M/s. Bharat Plast, along with a penalty of equivalent amount under Section 11AC. Additionally, a penalty of Rs. 10,000 was imposed on appellant No. 2, Shri Pushpendra Bhandari, the authorized signatory, and confiscation of plant and machinery was ordered with a redemption fine of Rs. 20,000.The facts revealed a shortage of 15229 insulated wares valued at Rs. 11,61,627 during a stock verification at the appellant's factory. Initially attributed to clandestine removal by Shri Bhandari, it was later claimed to be due to a mistake in account keeping by the staff, a defense not accepted by the lower authorities. The shortage covered 53 varieties and 15,229 pieces, with Mr. Bhandari's retraction of his statement deemed inconsequential without evidence of lawful disposal of the finished goods properly accounted for in the records.The Tribunal noted that the shortage of finished goods compared to the statutory records was an established fact. The appellants contended it was an account-keeping mistake without elaborating on the specifics. The failure to provide evidence of lawful clearances of the goods indicated a clandestine removal, as the manufacturer is aware of the legal obligations regarding production records and duty payment. The discrepancy between recorded production and physical balance led to the conclusion of clandestine removal, with no burden on the department to prove it.After considering the arguments and evidence, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeals and upheld the orders of the lower authority. The appeals were rejected, affirming the duty imposition, penalties, and confiscation with a redemption fine as per the original order.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
