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

2018 (2) TMI 639

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ity of transformers found the Appellant’s premises is set aside. Undisputedly and admittedly, the Appellants have violated the provisions of Rule 10 of CER, 2002 inasmuch as, challans were not prepared and followed other formalities in the movement of transformers. It is required that proper records has to be maintained for movement of the goods and on receipt of the same against proper documents records to be maintained at the recipient’s end. Thus, in these circumstances, imposition of penalty on the Appellant is sustainable. However, considering overall circumstances, penalty is reduced to ₹ 2,00,000/-. Appeal allowed in part. - Central Excise Appeal No.1376 of 2011-SM - A/13829/2017 - Dated:- 19-12-2017 - Dr. D.M. Misra, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ansformers were manufactured in the premises of the Appellants on job work basis out of the input supplied by Ms Danke Transformers Pvt. Ltd., and these transformers were kept outside the factory premises of the Appellant due to lack/shortage of space. He has submitted that while clearing 242 transformers for testing, no procedure has been followed by M/s Danke Transformers Pvt. Ltd. but all these transformers were duly numbered and later accounted for in the relevant registers. Also, subsequently, they have adduced evidences before the adjudicating authority to establish that these goods were manufactured in the premises of M/s Danke Transformers Pvt. Ltd. and received for testing purpose only. He submits that all these transformers are se .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nfiscation under Rule 25 of CER, 2002 has rightly been ordered and imposition of penalty also. 5. Heard both sides and perused the record. I find that undisputedly, 306 transformers were found lying excess in the premises of the Appellant. Explaining the said excess stock, the Appellant has submitted that 242 transformers were received for the purpose of testing and 64 transformers which have been manufactured on job work basis which were lying outside the factory premises due to lack of space. Further, I find that all these transformers were serially numbered and affixed with customer s name to whom it is meant to be cleared. It is also not in dispute that all these transformers meant to be cleared to Government Electricity Board/ Under .....

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