M/s. SAC Polymers Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Customs & CGST, New Delhi
Central Excise
2018 (7) TMI 523 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 20-6-2018
Excise Appeal No. 50688 of 2018 – A/52277/2018-SM[BR]
Central Excise
Shri Ajay Sharma, Member (Judicial)
Shri Anurag Kapur, Advocate for the Appellants
Shri K Poddar, AR for the Respondent
ORDER
Per Shri Ajay Sharma :
The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of PVC compound, master batch and PVC sleeve falling under Central Excise Tariff Heading 39042290, 32041990 and 39269099 of the first Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. An audit was conducted at the appellants premises and on scrutiny of the appellants balance sheet and form 3D for the financial year 2012-2013, a shortage / excess of 28,324 Kgs. of PVC compound and 247 Kgs of Master batch was noted. Upon inquiry, the appellant explained that their Chartered Accountant had wrongly mentioned the quantity of raw ma
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
viable thereon, should not be demanded and recovered from them under Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944;
(iii) the interest payable on the leviable duty amount in terms of the provision of section 11AA of the Act, ibid (erstwhile Section 11AB) should not be recovered at the applicable rate on the aforesaid demanded Central Excise duty;
(iv) Penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AC(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 should not be imposed upon M/s. Sac Polymers, G-204, Sector 5, DSIDC Industrial Complex, Bawana, Delhi 110039 for contravention of various provision of Central Excise Act, 1944 as mentioned above.
2. The adjudicating authority confirmed the entire demand vide Order-in-original dated 28.2.2017 and the same has been upheld by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 12.12.2017.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AR for the respondent and perused the record.
4. The entire case
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ble High Court of Judicature at Patna in the matter of CCE, Patna vs. Universal Polyethylene Industries [2011 (270) ELT 168 (Pat)] as also by this Tribunal in the following decisions:-
1. CCE patna vs. Universal Polyethylene Industries [2001 (130) ELT 228 (Tri-Kolkata)];
2. Utkal Galvanizers Ltd. vs. CCE, BBSR I [2003 (158) ELT 42 (Tri-Kolkata)];
3. Raam Tyres Ltd. vs. CCE, Visakhapatnam [2005 (188) ELT 408 (Tri-Bang)];
4. CCE, Nagpur vs. Vidarbha Winding Wires Ltd. [2008 (229) ELT 218 (Tri-Mumbai)];
5. Karan Textile Industries vs. CCE, Surat [2008 (232) ELT 863(Tri-Ahmd)];
6. Industrial Filter & Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Indore [2014 (307) ELT 131 (Tri-Delhi)];
6. In the present matter, admittedly, there is no corroborative evidence except the mis-match in the figures of the appellants balance sheet and the form 3D for the financial year 2012-2013. The charge of clandestine removal cannot be established merely on the ground of difference in the balance sheet and the stat
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =