Clandestine removal case - Department failed to establish ...

Insufficient Evidence Leads to Dismissal of Charges on TV Set Production, Demand for Duty and Penalties Overturned.

October 19, 2024

Case Laws Central Excise AT

Clandestine removal case - Department failed to establish clandestine manufacture and removal of assembled TV sets from warehouse/godown beyond reasonable doubt. Mere recovery of parts or TV sets insufficient, clinching corroborative evidence required. Statements alone cannot establish facts. Department tried to establish cash dealings to avoid buyer identity, but ledger showed banking transactions with buyer details. Consistent view that Settlement Commission findings cannot be basis for adjudication in different proceedings. As duty demand failed, interest and penalties also set aside. Extended period wrongly invoked as facts known to department in 2016 itself when DRI investigation started, show cause notice issued belatedly in 2020. Lack of evidence on manufacturing, transportation, buyers. Show cause notice unsustainable, appeal allowed.

View Source

← Previous Next →

Clandestine removal case - Department failed to establish ...

Insufficient Evidence Leads to Dismissal of Charges on TV Set Production, Demand for Duty and Penalties Overturned.

October 19, 2024

Case Laws Central Excise AT

You may also like:

Valuation - third party inspection charges cannot be included in transaction value - Supreme Court held cost of transportation from place of removal to delivery excluded...

The appellants had imported LED panels along with a few parts of TVs for manufacturing, but not all essential parts required to constitute a complete TV set. The...

Service tax demand on Goods Transport Agency (GTA) services rendered on reverse charge basis set aside as appellant did not collect service tax from service recipient....

Clandestine removal of goods denied CENVAT credit. Liability for duty, interest, and penalty from FY 2007-08 to 2011-12 assessed. Differential duty demand of Rs....

Confiscation of imported liquor cases, imposition of penalties, and demand of duty. The Tribunal held that there was no intentional misdeclaration or fraudulent intent...

The CESTAT set aside the demand and penalties imposed on the grounds of alleged clandestine removal, holding that the charge was not substantiated by sufficient evidence....

Clandestine removal - The department relied on statements, diaries, and records, which the appellants contested, citing coercion and lack of corroboration. The Tribunal...

CENVAT Credit - inputs issued for production lying in shop floor but not used for the production and the same was destroyed in fire - remission of duty granted - though...

Demand duty - Allegation of import Portland Pozzolana Cement without payment of customs duty - No evidence for actual import of the goods - The CESTAT held that the...

Clandestine removal - Charge Chrome - reliable evidence or not - To simply extrapolate the production figures of one company to determine whether there has been a...

Demand of duty - receipt of inputs or not - demand based on statements of the suppliers of the inputs - cross-examination not allowed - Revenue has no other evidence -...

CESTAT set aside multiple duty demands totaling over Rs. 2.3 crores against appellant manufacturer of LABSA. Primary allegations of clandestine manufacture and removal...

Freight charges shown separately in invoices for excisable goods, as per agreements with buyers, are not includible in the assessable value for excise duty, irrespective...

Clandestine removal demand based on electricity consumption not sustainable as mere electricity consumption cannot be the sole basis for determining duty liability....

Duty demand - FOC kits sold along with JCBs machines - The dropping of similar show cause notices relating to similar demands for duty has led to an anomalous situation...

Quick Updates: