Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding

🚨 Important Update for Our Users

We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.

⚠️ This portal will be fully migrated on 31-July-2025 at 23:59:59

After this date, all services will be available exclusively on our new platform.

If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know via our feedback form , with specific details, so we can address them promptly.

  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2002 (2) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password



 

2002 (2) TMI 687 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
- Alleged clandestine removal of goods exceeding exemption limit
- Calculation of estimated production based on statements
- Confirmation of duty demand and penalty imposition

Analysis:
1. Alleged Clandestine Removal of Goods Exceeding Exemption Limit:
- The appellants were manufacturing cleansing and washing powder under small scale exemption notification.
- Central Excise Officers found 568 bags of powder in stock during a visit, leading to suspicions of clandestine removal.
- Lack of immediate production records raised concerns, but records were later produced with entries of the bags.

2. Calculation of Estimated Production Based on Statements:
- Statements of the Proprietor and Labour-in-Charge were crucial in estimating production.
- Revenue calculated production based on Labour-in-Charge's statement, suspecting excess clearances beyond exemption limit.
- Show cause notices were issued for duty demand and penalty imposition, confirmed by Joint Commissioner and upheld by Commissioner (Appeals).

3. Confirmation of Duty Demand and Penalty Imposition:
- Appellants argued that the Revenue's case relied solely on the Labour-in-Charge's statement, who had limited tenure.
- Appellants contended that the charges of clandestine removal required substantial evidence, which was lacking.
- The Revenue pointed to the presence of 568 bags during the visit as evidence of clandestine activities.
- The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the statements and lack of substantial evidence to support the Revenue's claims.

4. Judgment:
- The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support the allegations of clandestine activities by the appellants.
- Lack of consistent worker numbers, machine capacity details, and absence of concrete proof weakened the Revenue's case.
- Non-production of records by the appellants, though suspicious, was not substantial evidence of wrongdoing.
- The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellants and granting consequential relief.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates