Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram
Central Excise - Highlights / Catch Notes

Home Highlights November 2024 Year 2024 This

Clandestine manufacture and removal allegation - substantial ...


Appeal Allowed: No Evidence of Clandestine Manufacturing, Penalty on Director Overturned Due to Lack of Corroboration.

November 28, 2024

Case Laws     Central Excise     AT

Clandestine manufacture and removal allegation - substantial electricity consumption cited as evidence - no other corroborative evidence found - Revenue failed to rebut appellant's claims - penalty imposed on Director. Held: Search commenced suddenly without notice, no chance for appellant to hide evidence. No raw materials, consumables, in-process or finished goods stocks found or recorded in Panchanama. Panchanama did not indicate manufacturing activities noticed during surprise visit. Revenue claimed six trucks carried finished goods, appellant countered they carried scrap from Kilns fabrication and installation. No clarity on when CPU was seized and whether Panchanama prepared for it, raising doubts on veracity of Revenue's claims based on emails. Retraction of initially recorded statements by appellant's officers. Electricity consumption attributed to Kilns fabrication and installation by appellant, Revenue did not provide detailed analysis to negate it. Proceedings based on presumptions and assumptions without proper corroborative evidence. Revenue failed to fortify claims despite appellant's satisfactory answers, shifting onus. Appeal allowed on merits. Penalty on Director set aside as confirmed demand unsustainable against main appellant. Impugned order set aside, appeal allowed.

View Source

 


 

You may also like:

  1. 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...

  2. 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....

  3. Penalty under Rule 26 and u/s 11AC - Personal penalty on Director, transporter and other persons - Clandestine manufacture and clearance of goods - levy of penalty...

  4. CESTAT adjudicated a case involving clandestine manufacture and removal of goods, finding critical evidentiary deficiencies. The tribunal invalidated electronic evidence...

  5. Demand of duty and Levy of penalty - Levy of penalty on Director - Clandestine removal - The demand was based on data printouts retrieved from a third party's computer,...

  6. Clandestine Removal - Levy of penalty - If on the basis of the evidences adduced which would be of the nature as enumerated at (ii) of para 40 of the said decision, the...

  7. Clandestine removal - The standard of evidences need not be as high as in criminal proceedings, where the charges are required to be established beyond reasonable doubts....

  8. Penalty imposed u/r 26 of Central Excise Rules 2002 set aside due to violation of principles of natural justice and lack of evidence. Department's case based solely on...

  9. In this CESTAT decision, the Tribunal allowed the appeal against allegations of clandestine manufacture and removal of MS ingots. The Tribunal found multiple procedural...

  10. Clandestine manufacture - tobacco snuff - It is found that to manufacture snuff of huge quantity, other raw material/packing material also required but no such evidence...

  11. Clandestine removal of excisable goods alleged based on statements recorded from partners, employees, and buyers. Section 9D of Central Excise Act mandates...

  12. Clandestine manufacture and clearance of Sponge Iron alleged - undervaluation demand calculated based on seized documents - retraction of statements - Section 9D of...

  13. Clandestine removal - MS Ingots - the findings of clandestine removal cannot be upheld based upon the third party documents, unless there is clinching evidence of...

  14. 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....

  15. Clandestine removal - penalty - The unquestioned documentary evidence would suffice to establish the clandestine removal and the handling of such goods by M/s Royal...

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates