Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2013 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (9) TMI 280 - AT - Central ExciseCleared Goods Without Duty Payment - Revenue was of the view the appellant had processed grey fabrics and cleared the same without payment of duty in contravention of the provisions of Act and Rules - Held that:- The appellant and also the evidences in both the cases and submissions made by both sides to come to the conclusion that appellant’s case has no merit - penalty and confiscation of the goods were set-aside - only duty demand against the appellant was sustainable Demand had been raised on the basis of statement whereby an estimate of 40% of total fabrics was alleged to have been processed by the appellant - Held that:- That was only a statement made during the reply to show cause notice and personal hearing and there was no retraction of the statement by Shri Babulal Shah at any stage and a mere statement that the percentage was not acceptable without explaining any reasons or ground for the same would only be an afterthought - It was not merely a statement that had been relied upon in the case and there were many other independent evidences - Ganesh M. Verma vs. Collector of Customs (P) Mumbai [2001 (1) TMI 689 - CEGAT, KOLKATA] smuggling statement of one accomplice corroborating another was admissible evidence - In the case of Kollatra Abbas Haji vs. GOI [1983 (8) TMI 60 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM] - in quasi-judicial proceedings evidence of co-accused had evidentiary value. Shortage of Goods - Demand had been raised on the shortage found during the search at the appellants premise - Held that:- Excise duty was required to be paid at the time of clearance and receipt of consideration from the customer had no relationship whatsoever - If the appellant had not received the money appellant had lien on the fabrics as per law and should have utilised the same - If he chooses to violate the law and supplied goods, he had to take the consequences for removing the goods without payment of duty. Excess Quantity of Processed Fabric - Demand had been raised on excess quantity of processed fabric found in the premise of the appellant without any final entry in the RG-1 Register – Held that:- In any case if the lot was not approved by the manufacturer the same need not have been entered into any register -There was temporary entry and there were entries in raw material register and lot register, would show bonafides of the assessee - the lot of processed fabrics was pending approval from the merchant manufacturer. Demand on Seized Fabric - Demands were raised on quantities of processed fabric seized at the shop and premises – Held that:- The way appellants had followed the law as regards Central Excise law and Procedure - Decided Against Assessee.
|