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 sets aside duty demand, confirms others, reduces penalty in excise case</h1> The Tribunal set aside the duty demand of Rs. 43,909 as the duty had been accounted for in the RG 23A Part II Register. However, it confirmed the duty ... Demand - Confiscation Issues involved:1. Duty demand on 69.695 MT of bars removed under GP 1 Nos. 511 to 517.2. Duty demand on 218.720 MT of CTD bars/channels/flats and angles + 1504.765 MT of CTD bars/rounds/angles + 96.240 MT of M.S. Flats.3. Confiscation of M.S. Channels, Angles & Flats seized.4. Penalty imposition.Analysis:Issue 1: Duty demand of Rs. 43,909The Central Excise Officers found a discrepancy in the debit entries for the removal of CTD Bars and scrap. The appellant argued that the duty had already been paid, supported by entries in the RG 23A Part II Register. The Tribunal accepted the appellant's submission and set aside this demand as the duty had been accounted for.Issue 2: Duty demand on various excisable goodsThe appellants claimed that most of the goods belonged to another entity and were stored adjacent to their factory premises. However, the Tribunal found discrepancies in the records and delivery challans, concluding that the goods were in the appellant's possession without proper authorization. The Tribunal confirmed the duty demand on these goods.Issue 3: Confiscation of Channels, Angles & FlatsThe seized goods were similar to those produced by the appellant, and proper procedures were not followed for bringing in duty-paid goods. The appellant's claim of incapacity to produce such goods was not substantiated by the documents provided. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation as the appellant failed to prove their defense.Issue 4: Penalty impositionDue to the setting aside of one duty demand, the penalty was reduced from Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 50,000. The Tribunal confirmed the duty demands on certain goods and upheld the confiscation, while reducing the penalty accordingly.This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the Tribunal's decision on each issue raised in the case, highlighting the reasoning behind the decisions made regarding duty demands, confiscation of goods, and penalty imposition.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
