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 / TMI Blogs / RSS

2017 (6) TMI 804

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Revenue ORDER Per: Shri P. K. Choudhary The appeal has been filed by the appellant against the impugned Order-in-Appeal No.25/Bol/2009 dated 23.07.2009 passed by Commr. of Central Excise (Appeals), Kolkata. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of M.S.Ingots classifiable under Chapter 72 of the 1st Schedule to the CETA, 1985. On 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng was conducted on the basis of eye estimation. It is further submitted that no proper stock taking was conducted and therefore, the demand of duty and CENVAT Credit is liable to be set aside. The ld.Consultant drew the attention of the Bench to the Affidavit dated 26.10.2005 of Shri Ashok Kumar Pandey, Manager of the Appellant Company, where it is stated that the stock taking on 23.02.2005 was d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e occurred due to faulty stock maintenance. I agree with the submissions of the ld.A.R. for the Revenue that the appellant accepted the shortage of finished products and inputs during stock verification. The appellant in their reply to SCN dated 27.10.2005, stated that the shortage was on the basis of eye estimation, but the submission is without any basis. In the Affidavit dated 26.10.2005 of Shr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Tribunal in various decisions, as under, held that sufficient evidence is required for clandestine removal of the goods : (i) Commr. of Central Excise, Kanpur Vs. Minakshi Castings : 2011 (274) ELT 180 (All.) ; (ii) Commr. of Central Excise, Meerut II Vs. Vam Organic & Chemical Ltd. : 2016 (342) ELT 174 (All.) ; (iii) Bindal Textiles Molls Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central E....