Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commr. of Central Excise, Lucknow Versus M/s Shyam Traders

2017 (11) TMI 990 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD

Clandestine removal - branded Gutkha - onus of prove on Revenue - Held that: - Revenue in their memo of appeal, have nowhere improved upon the evidences, which stand considered by the Appellate Authority as insufficient - The findings cannot be arrived at on the basis of assumption and presumption and require tangible and positive evidence. No such evidence stands produced by the Revenue, thus, requiring no interference in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal dismissed - dec .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

urnment. As I find no justifiable reason for adjournment of the matter, and proceed to hear the Revenue s appeal on the basis of the records. 3. The respondent is engaged in the manufacture of gutkha and Central Excise Officers seized the respondents branded gutkha from four different places. Inasmuch as the owner of the said place, could not produce the requisite duty paid documents in respect of the said seized gutkha, Revenue entertained a view that the same was cleared clandestinely by the r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

For better appreciation, the reasons adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) for allowing the appeal are being reproduced below : I have gone through the panchanama wherein the quality of gutkha has been mentioned as rejected. Further in his statement dated 10.04.07 Shri Agnihotri has admitted that the said goods which were rejected by purchaser were lying at his residence and some rejection occurred during packing of the material. I am of the opinion that if the goods once cleared on payment of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pany or Railway Booking Office. It was specifically affirmed with corroborative evidence that it was the sole responsibility of consignee who use to purchase the goods at ex factory gate of transporter or carry it on its own account. I find force in the contention of the appellant that if appellant had clandestinely cleared such huge quantity of finished goods on 15.03.07 which were seized at different locations then there must be shortage of finished goods then the recorded balance of the appel .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ocumentary evidences and the same were released to the appellant. Further it is noticed that both the transporters have stated that they had always transported the goods along with the bills which prove bonafide nature of the goods and further they have stated that freight were born by the consignee which again strengthen the contention of the appellant that they have affected the sale at factory gate. As regards Railway Station is concerned the goods were booked in the name of third party and a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version