Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2013 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 785 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine Removal of goods – Held that:- Charges of clandestine removal are serious charges and cannot be established on the basis of some loose documents of unverified nature – Following COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., AHMEDABAD-II Versus TEJAL DYESTUFF INDUSTRIES [2008 (7) TMI 412 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD] - having obtained confessional statements, Revenue officers did not carry out the detailed investigations into the relevant aspects of the case, particularly the bank accounts and working of the assessee’s factory - recording of a confessional statement would not put an end to investigation and the Revenue officers should be careful to ensure that they are not tricked out of a regular and detailed investigation. Entire Stock lied in the factory to be measured or not – Held that:- The department has admitted that physical verification of entire stock was not taken - The department itself believes that all fabrics received in the factory are first entered in kachcha chits and thereafter entered in the lot register, therefore, physical stock verification of entire stock was required to be carried out. -This having not been done, the department has not made out a case beyond doubt that there was shortage of particular MMF/CF and certain quantity of these fabrics was in excess. Apart from the loose papers which are held as not carrying much evidentiary value, there is virtually no evidence on record to establish clandestine activities of the respondents – Relying upon COMMR. OF C. EX., CUS. & SER. TAX, DAMAN Versus NISSAN THERMOWARE P. LTD. [2010 (12) TMI 487 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - A case of clandestine removal of goods has to be made out on facts which find corroboration from the material on record - In absence of any corroborative material, no demand could have been raised merely on the basis of a statement recorded under Section 14 of the Act, which had been subsequently retracted – Decided against Revenue.
|