Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2003 (11) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2003 (11) TMI 533 - AT - Central Excise


Issues involved: Application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalties arising from the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad dated 31-3-2003.

Details of the Judgment:

1. The Commissioner demanded Central Excise duty, imposed penalties, and demanded interest on various individuals associated with M/s. Shivom Ply-N-Wood Pvt. Ltd. under different sections and rules.

2. The department alleged undervaluation and clandestine removal of goods by M/s. Shivom Ply-N-Wood based on balance sheets for multiple years. The applicants' defense regarding the sale of timber was not accepted. Allegations were supported by statements of employees and dealers. The Commissioner found discrepancies in the balance sheets and excise records.

3. The applicants argued that principles of natural justice were not followed, citing lack of cross-examination of witnesses and discrepancies in the evidence. They claimed financial hardship due to losses and closure of their factory.

4. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal noted that the Department's case was based on audited balance sheets. The applicants' explanation regarding timber sales was not considered convincing. The Tribunal found no violation of natural justice and considered the financial hardship claim but did not find a strong case to waive the pre-deposit completely.

5. M/s. Shivom Ply-N-Wood was ordered to deposit Rs. 50 lakhs towards duty and Rs. 10 lakhs towards penalty within 12 weeks, with further deposit waived upon compliance. Non-compliance by 8-3-2004 would result in dismissal of the appeal.

Separate Judgment by Judge:
- No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates