Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
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 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
