9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Alleged duty demand on gold shortage. 2. Allowance of invisible loss during the manufacture of gold jewellery. 3. Appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) decision. Issue 1: Alleged duty demand on gold shortage The case involved an incident where an employee of a company was caught attempting to take out gold from the premises, leading to a stock verification revealing a shortage of gold. The Deputy Commissioner confirmed a duty demand based on the shortage, which the company had paid in excess. The company appealed for a refund of the excess amount paid, along with the confiscation of the gold found in possession of the employee. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the duty demand, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal. Issue 2: Allowance of invisible loss during the manufacture of gold jewellery During the proceedings, the company argued for an allowance of invisible loss during the various stages of manufacturing semi-finished gold jewellery, as opposed to the 9% allowance granted on finished gold jewellery in stock. The Tribunal noted that the allowance of 9% invisible loss on finished gold jewellery was based on a specific notification, and there was no provision for allowance of invisible loss during the manufacturing process. The company's attempt to contest the shortage after admitting and paying the duty was deemed an afterthought, leading the Tribunal to uphold the Commissioner (Appeals) decision. Issue 3: Appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) decision After hearing both sides, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the duty demand and the allowance of invisible loss. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the appeal, emphasizing the lack of legal basis for the company's claims and the inconsistency in their position regarding the shortage of gold. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the duty demand and the confiscation of the gold in question.
|
