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 reduces penalty, emphasizes SRP compliance, dismisses duty evasion allegations.</h1> <h3>BHAG POLYMERS Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI</h3> BHAG POLYMERS Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI - 1995 (78) E.L.T. 41 (Tribunal) Issues: Appeal against confiscation of PVC compound and polypropylene, imposition of penalty, failure to maintain proper accounts.Confiscation of PVC Compound:The appeal challenged the order of confiscation of PVC compound by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi, which was upheld by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). The appellant argued that the PVC compound was not fully finished for marketing as it required testing and sorting, but the authorities found otherwise. The appellant failed to provide evidence of the testing process or its necessity. The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' findings, noting the absence of evidence supporting the appellant's claims. However, the Tribunal acknowledged the absence of intent to evade duty and the proper entry of raw materials in the statutory record. The Tribunal considered the appellant's argument regarding failure to maintain accounts but emphasized the importance of proper account maintenance under the SRP system.Confiscation of Polypropylene:Regarding the confiscation of polypropylene, there was a discrepancy in the Assistant Collector's order. While noting an excess of 1725 kgs. of polypropylene, the order also mentioned the reversal of duty credit if not redeemed on payment of a fine. The appellant argued that the time lag between entry and consumption caused the discrepancy in the balance. The Assistant Collector alleged an intent to evade duty, but no evidence supported this claim. The Tribunal found the lack of substantiation and set aside the confiscation of both PVC and polypropylene.Penalty Imposition and Account Maintenance:The Tribunal reduced the penalty imposed from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 2,000 due to the established failure to maintain proper accounts. While acknowledging the importance of maintaining accounts, the Tribunal found no evidence of clandestine removal of inputs or intent to evade duty. The decision highlighted the necessity of proper record-keeping under Rule 57F but emphasized the lack of evidence supporting the allegations of duty evasion.In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the confiscation of PVC compound and polypropylene, reduced the penalty, and emphasized the significance of maintaining accurate accounts while dismissing claims of intent to evade duty without substantial evidence.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
