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 - 2015 (10) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2015 (10) TMI 1979 - AT - Central Excise


Issues: Stay application for recovery of confirmed demand and penalty in a case of clandestine clearance of cement.

Analysis:
1. Cross-examination of witnesses: The main appellant and the Managing Director sought the benefit of cross-examination of witnesses during the remand proceedings. The advocate argued that while some witnesses were cross-examined, others were not, leading to a case primarily based on statements without sufficient corroboration from independent evidence.

2. Arguments by the Appellant: The advocate contended that the department did not correctly quantify the duty, hence requesting a stay against the recovery of the confirmed demand and penalty.

3. Response by the Respondent: The respondent, represented by the Superintendent, stated that all witnesses requested for cross-examination were issued summons. It was argued that the case was not solely based on statements, as there were ample corroborative evidences, including 7 chits and procurement of excess raw materials, indicating clandestine manufacturing and clearance of finished goods.

4. Adjudication and Decision: After reviewing the case records, it was found that a case of clandestine clearance of cement was established against the main appellant. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed a demand of Rs. 2,62,04,776, along with interest, and imposed a penalty on the main appellant and the Managing Director. Various pieces of evidence, such as 7 chits and separate invoices for clandestine removals, were presented. The main appellant was ordered to pre-deposit Rs. 20.00 Lakhs within eight weeks, with a stay on the remaining amounts subject to this payment. The Revenue's application for early hearing was rejected, with instructions to report compliance by a specified date.

This detailed analysis covers the issues of the stay application, cross-examination of witnesses, arguments by both parties, adjudication process, and the final decision of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA regarding the recovery of confirmed demand and penalty in the case of clandestine clearance of cement.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates