Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 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 discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2021 (4) TMI 641 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine removal - MS Ingots - Iron Ore - stock of finished goods lying in factory without entry in production register - corroborative evidence proving the allegations against the appellant or not - penalty - HELD THAT - There was no better evidence before Commissioner (Appeals) than it was before Assistant Commissioner. Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the verification of stock of Ingots was conducted in presence of the Authorized Signatory of the appellant who neither had objected the method of physical verification nor made any complaint. He had rather admitted the same and also in the excess stock of 56.300 MT of MS Ingots valued at Rs. 11, 09, 110/-. The statement of said Authorized Signatory Shri Kumar Chakraborty is perused. It shows that there is no admission for the alleged excess stock. None as his answers recorded in the statement amount to admission except that no satisfactory reason has been cited is alleged against said Shri Chakraborty. No doubt there is no retraction as in impressed upon by the Department but once there is no admission retraction is not required. It is otherwise apparent from record that the appellant requested for the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses the said opportunity has been denied cross examination is the basic rule of ensuring fair trial the denial thereof in the case which lacks any cogent evidence adversely affects the Department. Department has not bring for any such evidence which may prove their allegations. In absence thereof however in view of the acknowledge that the notice shortage is just of one day production even if recording as required under Rule 10 is missing but the same does not warrant the application of Rule 25 (1) (b) of Central Excise Rules 2002. Thus neither the MS Ingots as well as the Iron Ore are liable for confiscation nor present is the case of imposition of penalty - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|