Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
The appellant's contention regarding shortage of work-in-progress (WIP) due to dust generated during manufacturing was rejected. The logical conclusion was that final goods were manufactured but lesser quantity was recorded in the final products register, and duty was paid on the recorded quantity, while the remaining quantity was removed clandestinely. The shortage was substantial, and the impugned order correctly held the appellant liable for excise duty u/s 11A, invoking extended period of limitation along with interest and penalty u/s 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, the imposition of personal penalty on Shri Tekriwal u/r 26 was set aside as confiscation of goods, a prerequisite for invoking Rule 26, was not undertaken by the Commissioner. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
The appellant's contention regarding shortage of work-in-progress (WIP) due to dust generated during manufacturing was rejected. The logical conclusion was that final goods were manufactured but lesser quantity was recorded in the final products register, and duty was paid on the recorded quantity, while the remaining quantity was removed clandestinely. The shortage was substantial, and the impugned order correctly held the appellant liable for excise duty u/s 11A, invoking extended period of limitation along with interest and penalty u/s 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, the imposition of personal penalty on Shri Tekriwal u/r 26 was set aside as confiscation of goods, a prerequisite for invoking Rule 26, was not undertaken by the Commissioner. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
