CESTAT allowed the appeal, finding the excise duty demand ...

Excise Duty Challenge Succeeds: Input-Output Ratio Assumptions Rejected Under Section 35 Without Substantive Evidence

May 8, 2025

Case Laws Central Excise AT

CESTAT allowed the appeal, finding the excise duty demand legally unsustainable. The tribunal determined that the revenue's case was built solely on input-output ratio assumptions without independent verification or corroborative evidence of clandestine manufacture. The department failed to provide substantive proof of unauthorized goods removal or cash transactions. No statements from potential buyers or vehicle owners were recorded, rendering the confiscation of 157.436 M.T. of Sponge Iron invalid. The tribunal set aside the redemption fine and penalties, concluding that the show cause notice lacked specific facts about suppression and was issued beyond reasonable time limitations.

View Source

← Previous Next →

CESTAT allowed the appeal, finding the excise duty demand ...

Excise Duty Challenge Succeeds: Input-Output Ratio Assumptions Rejected Under Section 35 Without Substantive Evidence

May 8, 2025

Case Laws Central Excise AT

You may also like:

Claim of rebate/ refund - input stage rebate - export of goods - the correctness of the ratio of the input output ratio shall be verified before the commencement of the...

HC allowed the petition, holding that a manufacturer/exporter can claim one input-side benefit and one output-side benefit without constituting double benefit. The court...

Availing Cenvat Credit of duty paid inputs, semi-processed inputs and inputs contained in the final products lying in the stock after withdrawal of partial exemption - w....

Clandestine Removal - melting scrap - excess input output ratio - shortage of finished goods - The said input-output ratio cannot remain fixed due to variable factors...

Goods manufactured within Special Economic Zone (SEZ) were challenged regarding applicability of Special Additional Excise Duty (SAED) and Additional Duty of Excise...

The High Court held that the petitioner's failure to file the declaration and Form ARE-2 should not result in rejection of the rebate claim, as the buses were...

The appellant paid excise duty on the removal of inputs as such, based on the transaction value. However, this excise duty was found to be in excess of the actual CENVAT...

Cenvat Credit - Clandestine removal - excess use of inputs - there are no justifiable reasons to deny the credit to the appellant merely on the basis of the input output ratio

Cenvat credit - Once the credit is availed, the use of such credit is governed by Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Sub-Rule (4) of the said Rule stipulates that...

Recovery of wrongly utilized credit - utilization of Cenvat Credit availed on Basic Excise Duty (BED) for payment of EC and SHEC - Period between April 2013 and January...

This case deals with the applicability of Special Additional Excise Duty (SAED) levied u/s 147 of the Finance Act, 2002, and Additional Duty of Excise (AED) levied as...

Levy of excise duty and NCCD under the Central Excise Act, 1944 - It is pertinent to note that in the writ petition, there are no pleadings that action of levy of excise...

Refund claim - excise duty paid wrongly - The entry was made debiting the excise duty without actually collecting the excise duty - they have not paid the excise duty...

Confiscation of imported goods - non-foundry scrap - In the input/ out put norms - The calculation in the appeal is made by adoption of a fix ratio 1.5 which is not...

The dispute pertained to the excise duty payable on certain goods, with the petitioner and the excise department adopting different classifications. The key issues were...

Quick Updates: