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

TMI Blog

Home

2002 (10) TMI 554

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... al Manager, of the applicant company and Shri Virendra B. Shah, Partner in M/s. Veer Associates, Ahmedabad. 2. The applicant was registered under the Central Excise Act, to manufacture glycerine, detergent powder, toilet soap etc.; at his factory at 16/B, Post- Mandali, Mehsana. Acting upon the intelligence about evasion of Central Excise duty by the applicant, the officers of the Directorate General of Anti-Evasion, Mumbai Zone (Now called as Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence) searched the factory premises of the applicant on 17-9-1999 and seized certain incriminating record. The scrutiny of record and investigation revealed that the applicant used to remove consignments of the glycerine clandestinely, without accounti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt. In the hearing on 11-12-2001, the applicant submitted revised annexures about admitted duty liability and reduced the accepted duty liability from Rs. 25,97,800/- to Rs. 16,38,000/-. In the said annexures, the applicant disputed demand issued in respect of certain consignments and also claimed benefit of cum duty price. Since the Revenue requested for adjournment of the hearing, the case was adjourned to 12-3-2002. The revised annexures submitted by the applicant were forwarded to the Revenue for comments. The Commission postponed the hearing fixed on 12-3-2002 to 20-3-2002. The applicant sought adjournment of hearing fixed on 20-3-2002 due to disturbance prevailing in Ahmedabad. Vide Interim Order No. 23/CEX/2002 dated 1-4-2002, the he .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... plicant on payment of fees. On applicant s request, hearing fixed on 12-8-2002, was adjourned to 17-10-2002, vide Interim Order No. 62/C.Ex/2002, dated 16-8-2002. The Commission adjourned the hearing fixed on 17-10-2002 to 25-10-2002. 5. The hearing was held on 25-10-2002. 6. On 25-10-2002 the applicants M/s. Nirma Ltd. S/Shri T.S. Chaudhary, Dy. General Manager, Kalpesh A. Patel, Executive Director, Virendra Shah, Partner of Veer Associates, Ahmedabad were represented by S/Shri Vikram Nankani, Advocate, M.A. Patel, Consultant, S.K. Verma, Manager (Finance) of M/s. Nirma Ltd. and Ms. Tejal Shah, C.A. 7. The ld. Advocate submitted that the revised annexure submitted after admission of the application, admitting Rs. 16,38,000/- may be t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Enterprise A/c. Veer Associates. The Revenue did not find the name of M/s. Popatlal Enterprise anywhere in the batchwise register. Since there is an invoice in the name of M/s. Veer Associates which reads as Popatlal A/c. Veer Associates , the duty of Rs. 2,39,400/- involving 19000 kgs. should be deemed to have been paid through invoice in the name of Popatlal A/c. Veer Associates . The ld. Counsel further submitted that they are not contesting the time-bar issue, even in respect of the quantity not included in the show cause notice. The ld. Advocate while concluding submitted that they are ready to accept the duty liability worked out in the Commissioner (Inv.) s report, which would mean that the show cause notice amount of Rs. 25,97,800 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... k out to Rs. 26,83,323/-. 10. The Revenue submitted that the applicant has admitted the duty liability as they have no other option but to do that. Hence immunity from interest, fine, penalty and prosecution may not be granted to the applicant. 11. The ld. Advocate of the applicant submitted that the applicant will not like to contest the duty amount of Rs. 53,632/-, the benefit of which was given by Commissioner (Inv.) on account of Turnover Tax and would even admit that amount in the spirit of settlement. Hence he submitted that the applicant is willing to admit Rs. 26,83,323/- as was being claimed by the Revenue. He further prayed that as the applicant is not contesting the duty amount he may be granted immunity as sought for. 12. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates