Clandestine removal of goods - Whether appellant was ...

Court Rules on Zinc Ingots Manufacturing Case: Revenue Cannot Selectively Use Statements to Their Advantage.

September 29, 2016

Case Laws Central Excise AT

Clandestine removal of goods - Whether appellant was manufacturing Zinc Ingots for the entire period from 1996-1997 to 2000-2001 or started such Zinc Ingot manufacturing few days before the search - It is a well accepted legal proposition now that a statement has to be accepted as a whole and Revenue cannot pick and choose the portions of a statement favourable to them. - AT

View Source

← Previous Next →

Clandestine removal of goods - Whether appellant was ...

Court Rules on Zinc Ingots Manufacturing Case: Revenue Cannot Selectively Use Statements to Their Advantage.

September 29, 2016

Case Laws Central Excise AT

You may also like:

CENVAT Credit - Separate Accounts - Prima facie it was impossible for the Appellants to maintain separate account and inventory of Zinc Skimming used for manufacture of...

Clandestine manufacture and removal of Aluminum Alloy ingots and Zinc Alloy ingots - the whole case is built up on data contained in the pen drive and certain...

CESTAT ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties in a case involving misdeclaration of imported zinc ingots as lead...

Central Excise Act interpretation regarding use of oxygen in sulphuric acid manufacturing. Tribunal upheld that oxygen produced by respondent was not used in sulphuric...

The case pertains to the allegation of clandestine manufacture and clearance of structural items/rolled products by the appellant. The revenue's case rested solely on...

CENVAT Credit - exempted goods as scrap produced in process of manufacture of dutiable good - demand @ 6% of the value of the zinc scarp - when the zinc scrap which is a...

Appropriate forum - High Court or Supreme Court - issue of limitation - Decision in rem or in personam - In the facts of this case, the revenue could challenge only part...

The adjudicating authority is bound to explain the alleged contraventions to the person proceeded against or their legal representatives. Rule 4(4) mandates...

The Calcutta High Court considered a case involving the clandestine removal of wire rods and the levy of a penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The...

Recovery of Rebate - Export of exempted goods under Bond / LUT - Export of medicaments - The fact in this case is the appellant have cleared the goods under LUT which...

Valuation of imported goods - Unwrought / Unrefined Zinc - enhancement of value - rejection of transaction value - The importer declared the goods as...

In a recent High Court case, the issue of whether advertisement expenditure could be considered as allowable revenue expenditure was discussed. The ITAT allowed the...

HC upheld validity of Rule 36(4) of CGST Rules, dismissing constitutional challenge. Court determined Rule 36(4) derives authority from Section 16 of CGST Act and...

Clandestine removal - Whether electricity consumption can be considered as valid evidence of clandestine manufacture of taxable goods? - CESTAT upheld the findings of...

The High Court held that respondent No. 3 cannot avoid deciding the petitioners' application dated 20 December 2023 seeking an advance ruling on the taxability of sale...

Quick Updates: