Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
741 to 760 of 95875 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
