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

2013 (10) TMI 234

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... anufacture of Ingots - The Commissioner while dropping the duty demand made purely on the basis of the electricity consumption, has confined the confirmation of duty demand based on the paper slips showing unaccounted purchase of 437.58 MT of scrap. - Partial stay granted. - Appeal No. 58773-58776 of 2013 (SM) - Stay Order No. 59267-59270/2013 - Dated:- 23-9-2013 - Shri Rakesh Kumar, J. For the Appellant: Shri Rajesh Chhibber, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri Davender Singh, Authorized Representative (Jt. CDR) ORDER Per. Rakesh Kumar :- The facts leading to filing of these appeals are, in brief, as under. 1.1 The appellant company is manufacturers of MS Ingots from scrap. Shri Anil Kumar Agarwal, Mrs. Sunita Agarw .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... yable. Though the show cause notice also discusses the recovery of loose paper slips showing purchase of 437.58 MT of MS scrap during January 2007 to March 2007 period from residential premises of Shri Anil Agarwal, stating that these paper slips are in respect of purchase of MS scrap from various persons, that the same have not been accounted for in their records and have been used in the unaccounted production of MS Ingots, in the show cause notice there is no duty demand on the basis of the alleged unaccounted manufacture and clearance of MS Ingots by using 437.58 MT of MS scrap. Accordingly, the show cause notice issued to the appellant was for duty demand of Rs. 2,26,80,122/- for the period from 2005-2006 to December 2007 on the basis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Heard both the sides in respect of stay application. 3. Shri Rajesh Chhibber, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the appellants, pleaded that he is not contesting the duty demand of Rs. 3,05,523/- of shortage of 96.935 MT of MS Ingots, that this amount has already been paid by the appellant, that as regards the duty demand of Rs. 13,10,150/-, the same is based on the alleged unaccounted purchase of 437.58 MT of MS scrap, that this allegation is based on the loose paper slips recovered from the residential premises of Shri Anil Kumar Agarwal, the appellant in course of investigation had pleaded that this scrap had been accounted for in their records, that in any case, since there is no duty demand in the show cause notice on the basis of a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... gh in the show cause notice, there is no specific calculation of duty demand based on the unaccounted purchase and consumption of 437.58 MT scrap, the duty demand of Rs. 13,70,150/- based on this allegation has to be treated as included in the duty demand of Rs. 2,26,80,122/- based on the allegation of under reporting of production, that the Commissioner, therefore, has correctly confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 13,70,150/- based on unaccounted purchase and consumption of MS scrap and that this is not the case where the Adjudicating Authority has travelled beyond the allegation in show cause notice and that the amount already paid is not sufficient to safeguard the interests of the Revenue. 5. I have considered the submissions from both t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er in the facts of this case, the principle that an allegation not made in the show cause notice cannot be considered and decided by adjudicating authority, is applicable or not and whether duty demand based on unaccounted purchase of scrap could be confirmed, when in the show cause notice duty had not been demanded on this basis, can be considered only at the time of final hearing. From the records, it is clear that there was unaccounted purchase of MS scrap which admittedly had been used for unaccounted production of MS Ingots. In view of this, the amount already paid is not sufficient for safeguarding the interests of Revenue. The appellant are, therefore, directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs) within a period .....

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