Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2016 (7) TMI 722

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Tax Appellate Tribunal (for the sake of brevity hereinafter to be referred to as "CESTAT"), Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata in Excise Appeal Nos. EDM36-40 of 2006, whereby, CESTAT, Kolkata has partly allowed the appeal preferred by the appellant and for imposition of penalty of Rs. 35 Lakhs upon the appellant under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for clandestine removal of the goods, the matter has been remanded for refixing the amount of penalty upon the company, but, so far as removal of the goods through seven gate passes are concerned, it is admitted fact that these goods were removed without payment of the duty and it is also admitted fact that the goods which were removed, were excisable goods. Nonetheless, in the High Cour....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd to be held not used for actual export but for home-consumption of goods clandestinely removed. Such issue therefore calls for imposition of duty as well as penalty." So far as the duty imposed upon the aforesaid clandestine removal of the goods is concerned, the same was confirmed and so far as penalty imposed upon the company is concerned, the matter was remanded by the CESTAT. There is also penalty, imposed upon the four directors of the company, as stated in paragraph no. 10.9 of the aforesaid order passed by the CESTAT, Kolkata. The penalty of Rs. 2 Lakhs each was levied upon the directors of the company, namely, Mr. G.P. Dalmia, Mr. Kali Kant Jha, Mr. Sanjay Dalmia and Mr. Sunil Dalmia, appellants in Excise Appeal Nos. EDM3740 of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... solid aluminium, wires are being drawn by the appellant and it is semi-finished product and for further finishing, it was sent to M/s Manipur Conductors, Imphal which is a sister concern of the appellant and, hence, it is not excisable. This contention is also not accepted by this Court mainly for the reason that drawing of wires out of solid aluminium also tantamounts to manufacturing. Upon the naked aluminium wire even if certain processes are to be done for the end use of the aluminium wire, then every stage is also a separate manufacture and for ultimate end product excise duty will also have to pay by taking CENVAT credit. This concept of CENVAT credit has been developed only for the purpose of payment of the duty at every stage of ma....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....olkata. No substantial question of law has been raised in this Tax Appeal and, hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed. Tax Appeal Nos. 2 of 2008, 3 of 2008 and 4 of 2008 6. These Tax Appeals have been preferred by Mr. Sunil Dalmia, Mr. Sanjay Dalmia and Mr. G.P. Dalmia against the order passed by the CESTAT, Kolkata dated 30th May, 2007. The observations against the appellants are in paragraph nos. 10.9, which reads as under: "10.9 Penalty of Rs. 2.00 lakh (Rupees two lakh) each levied on S/Shri G.P. Dalmia, Kali Kant Jha, Sanjay Dalmia, Sunil Dalmia who are appellants in Appeal Case Nos. 37-40/06 does not call for interference in view of aforesaid circumstances of confirmation of demand partly by this Order. Such a preventive measu....