Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2010 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (10) TMI 645 - AT - Central ExciseEvasion of duty - Notification No. 211/83-C.E., dated 4-8-83 up to 24-3-85 and under Notification No. 100/85-C.E - misdeclaration of the “adjusted sale price” in relation to manufacture of “Panama” brand cigarette of the respective description for which protection of revenue was warranted - Revenue was of the opinion that there was no difference between two brands i.e. ‘Panama Viriginia G’ manufactured by NETCO and ‘Panama Virigina (Special), manufactured by GTC in its various factories - The recorded statement examined by the Authority brought to record shows that there was realisation of excess sale price and the price marked on the packets were lower than the actual price realised from sale of cigarettes - There was no disclaimer of the materials recovered in the course of search and statements recorded on the basis of such materials from deponents proved proximity and intimate connection thereof with the trade of appellants and persons connected thereto - It is well known, that it is very difficult for Revenue, to prove every link, in respect of the commission of the offence under the Act by direct evidence - An admission is the best evidence that an opposing party can rely upon, and though not conclusive, is decisive of the matter, unless successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous - Held that: the declaration filed before the authorities were full proof of suppression of fact, when all connected evidence proved realisation of higher MRP. Accordingly, the Excise authorities having discharged their burden of proof, the appellants had no right to call for cross-examination on flimsy plea Regarding penalty - Having noticed that both the appellants had pre-meditated design through the joint venture approach to undervalue the goods resulting in loss of Revenue and been intimately connected with such loss causing evasion of Revenue, levy of penalty on both of them was justified - Appeals are dismissed
|