Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2018 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 209 - HC - Central ExciseWhether the Tribunal was correct in allowing the appeals of the assessee, solely by holding that there is no sufficient corroborative evidence to statement tendered by partner of assessee, (para 6.3), even when statement tendered by Central Excise Officer is admissible before court of law as piece of evidence? Held that: - only on the basis of statement of Tara Chand who was the partner of the Company, case of the department is not sustainable - reliance placed in the case of Continental Cement Company vs. Union of India [2014 (9) TMI 243 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], where it was held that unless there is clinching evidence of the nature of purchase of raw materials, use of electricity, sale of final products, clandestine removals, the mode and flow back of funds, demands cannot be confirmed solely on the basis of presumptions and assumptions. Clandestine removal is a serious charge against the manufacturer, which is required to be discharged by the Revenue by production of sufficient and tangible evidence. Appeal dismissed.
|