SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(P&H) 3003

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, RAJESH BINDAL
Commissioner Of Central Excise – Appellant
Versus
Machino Montell (I) Ltd. – Respondent


Judgment

1. The respondent is a manufacturer of polypropylene compounding falling under Chapter heading(39 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It was noticed that for the years ending 31-3-1997, 31-3-1998 and 31-3-1999, forged entries were shown in RG-I register. Show cause notice dated 19-6-2001 was issued under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short "the Act"), requiring the assessee to show cause why additional duty and penalty be not imposed.

2. After considering the view point of the assessee, the adjudicating authority held that the party had clandestinely removed finished goods without issue of invoice and without payment of duty. Interest and penalty was levied thereon wilfully and intentionally evading payment of duty. The said duty was however, deposited without any protest on 23-5-2001 prior to the show cause notice dated 19-6-2001. The adjudicating authority concluded as under:

I come to the unmistakable conclusion that the differential quantity has been surreptitiously removed without following the prescribed Central Excise procedure and without payment of duty. In view of this I hold that the sum of Rs. 1,12,900/- demanded from the n










Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top