2018 (10) TMI 833 – CALCUTTA HIGH COURT – TMI – Clandestine removal – unlabelled stock – Interpretation of Statute – Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 read with the letter of the Board dated 9th November, 1964 – Held that:- There was a stock of unlabelled and unstamped plywood manufactured by the appellant. The stock may not have been very large but it is an admitted position that it was not taken into account at the time of calculation of the demand, by the respondent.
–
A mixed question of facts and law arise from the said impugned order of the Tribunal. In our opinion, a thorough adjudication on facts is required to ascertain whether there was any quantity of unlabelled and unstamped plywood? Whether the appellant had entered this stock in the Daily Stock Account R. G. – 1 according to Rule 10 of the said Rules? What is the amount of duty that is to be adjusted against this stock of goods and in that event what would be the ultimate demand of the respondent?
–
This C
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
tion of Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 read with the letter of the Board dated 9th November, 1964. Mr. P. K. Das appearing for the appellant submits that in accordance with the ratio of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Customs And C. E. Versus Oriental Timber Industries reported in 1985, Volume 20, ELT Page 202(SC) and the said Rule 10, the stock of unlabelled and unstamped plywood manufactured by the appellant was entered in their Daily Stock Account R.G. – 1. The demand of duty of ₹ 2, 45, 850.09/- along with interest and penalty of ₹ 4, 00, 292.00/- has been wrongly imposed on the appellant by the respondent authority by rejecting their argument that this stock of unlabelled and unstamped plywood was to be entered in the Daily Stock Account and accounted for. Mr. Das said that according to the respondent such entry should be ignored and was ignored by them. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Commissioner submitted that at all stages of th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
? This Court is of the view that these questions of fact and law can be best answered by the tribunal or the adjudicating authorities below. In those circumstances, we formally admit the appeal. By consent of the parties, we have heard it out dispensing with all formalities. Instead of hearing out this appeal on questions of law, it would be proper if the above issues are remanded back to the Tribunal for de novo adjudication upon hearing the parties within four months from the date of communication of this order. We order accordingly. The Tribunal will be at liberty to further remand the matter to a lower over adjudicating authority for fact finding purposes. The Tribunal will not be bound by any observation made herein. As affidavits were not invited, the allegation contained in the stay petition are deemed not to be admitted. The appeal (CEXA No. 55 of 2018) along with the stay application (GA No. 826 of 2018) are disposed of. – Case laws – Decisions – Judgements – Orders – Tax M
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =