Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 606 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine Removal - main allegation raised against the appellants is that they did not have reeling machines which were fully functional during the disputed period and that they were clearing only cone yarn in the guise of hank yarn to evade payment of central excise duty - Held that: - the department has not been able to establish clandestine clearances of the finished products on the part of the appellants - In Continental Cement Company Vs. UOI [2014 (9) TMI 243 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], the Hon’ble High Court held that unless there is clinching evidence of the entry and purchase of raw material, use of extra electricity, sale of final products, the mode of flow back of funds, the demand cannot be confirmed solely on the basis of presumptions and assumptions - Clandestine removal is serious charge against the manufacturer, which is required to be discharged by the Revenue by adducing sufficient and tangible evidence. The Tribunal in the case of Rama Spinners Pvt. Ltd. [2016 (11) TMI 156 - CESTAT HYDERABAD], held that allegation based mainly on statements and some records recovered from the third party cannot be basis for the demand alleging clandestine removal. Demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|