Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Micky Metals Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Kolkata)
Appeal Number : Excise Appeal No. 162 of 2012
Date of Judgement/Order : 04/07/2023
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Micky Metals Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Kolkata)

Introduction: The landmark judgment of Micky Metals Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise delivered by CESTAT Kolkata, forms a crucial part of legal discussions concerning excise duty. The crux of the case revolved around allegations of clandestine removal of goods, based solely on the difference in figures between the audit report and the ER-1 return. This insightful analysis delves into the particulars of the case, examining the court’s verdict and its far-reaching implications.

Analysis: The allegations against Micky Metals Limited were premised on apparent discrepancies in the audit report and the ER-1 return figures. The appellant was accused of suppressing production quantities, and subsequently evading central excise duty. However, the court noted that the authorities had neither conducted a detailed investigation to establish clandestine removal nor recorded any statements to support the allegations.

Citing precedents from cases like Chanduka Hi-Tech Steel Pvt.Ltd. v. CESTAT, Kolkata, Continental Cement Company v. Union of India and Tally Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore, the court laid out the essentials that need to be investigated for establishing clandestine removal. Furthermore, it declared that extended period of limitation was not invocable, as the audit report, a public document, was available to the department in due time.

Conclusion: The CESTAT Kolkata, in the case of Micky Metals Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, set a vital legal precedent. It unequivocally established that charges of clandestine removal cannot be sustainable merely on the basis of difference in audit report and ER-1 return figures, without adequate investigation and corroborative evidence. This ruling safeguards companies from undue allegations, fortifying the requirement of concrete evidence in excise duty-related cases.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
August 2024
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031