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

2016 (7) TMI 722

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... evity hereinafter to be referred to as "CESTAT"), Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata in Excise Appeal Nos. EDM36-40 of 2006, whereby, CESTAT, Kolkata has partly allowed the appeal preferred by the appellant and for imposition of penalty of Rs. 35 Lakhs upon the appellant under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for clandestine removal of the goods, the matter has been remanded for refixing the amount of penalty upon the company, but, so far as removal of the goods through seven gate passes are concerned, it is admitted fact that these goods were removed without payment of the duty and it is also admitted fact that the goods which were removed, were excisable goods. Nonetheless, in the High Court, learned counsel appearing for the appella .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ch issue therefore calls for imposition of duty as well as penalty." So far as the duty imposed upon the aforesaid clandestine removal of the goods is concerned, the same was confirmed and so far as penalty imposed upon the company is concerned, the matter was remanded by the CESTAT. There is also penalty, imposed upon the four directors of the company, as stated in paragraph no. 10.9 of the aforesaid order passed by the CESTAT, Kolkata. The penalty of Rs. 2 Lakhs each was levied upon the directors of the company, namely, Mr. G.P. Dalmia, Mr. Kali Kant Jha, Mr. Sanjay Dalmia and Mr. Sunil Dalmia, appellants in Excise Appeal Nos. EDM3740 of 2006 before the CESTAT, Kolkata. The appeals preferred by the directors were rejected by the CESTAT, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , it was sent to M/s Manipur Conductors, Imphal which is a sister concern of the appellant and, hence, it is not excisable. This contention is also not accepted by this Court mainly for the reason that drawing of wires out of solid aluminium also tantamounts to manufacturing. Upon the naked aluminium wire even if certain processes are to be done for the end use of the aluminium wire, then every stage is also a separate manufacture and for ultimate end product excise duty will also have to pay by taking CENVAT credit. This concept of CENVAT credit has been developed only for the purpose of payment of the duty at every stage of manufacturing. Hence, this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that they have removed semi-finished .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Tax Appeal Nos. 2 of 2008, 3 of 2008 and 4 of 2008 6. These Tax Appeals have been preferred by Mr. Sunil Dalmia, Mr. Sanjay Dalmia and Mr. G.P. Dalmia against the order passed by the CESTAT, Kolkata dated 30th May, 2007. The observations against the appellants are in paragraph nos. 10.9, which reads as under: "10.9 Penalty of Rs. 2.00 lakh (Rupees two lakh) each levied on S/Shri G.P. Dalmia, Kali Kant Jha, Sanjay Dalmia, Sunil Dalmia who are appellants in Appeal Case Nos. 37-40/06 does not call for interference in view of aforesaid circumstances of confirmation of demand partly by this Order. Such a preventive measure to deter recurrence is rational. We order accordingly." In view of the aforesaid order passed by the CESTAT, Kolkata .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he show cause notice issued by the respondent-Department and also looking to the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise in his order dated 17th October, 2005. Sizable amount of central excise duty was evaded and, hence, no error has been committed while passing the Order-in-Original by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ranchi as well as by the CESTAT, Kolkata for imposing penalty of Rs. 2 Lakh upon each of the appellants. We see no reason to take any other view than what is taken by the CESTAT, Kolkata. So far as penalty of Rs. 35 Lakhs upon the company is concerned, the matter has already been remanded by the CESTAT, Kolkata. The amount of Rs. 2 Lakh per head of penalty is absolutely just and proper, looking to th .....

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