TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the seized excess stock of plywood was liable to confiscation, and (ii) whether the demand raised on the alleged clandestine removal of plywood and the consequential penalty were sustainable.
Issue (i): whether the seized excess stock of plywood was liable to confiscation.
Analysis: The explanation that the goods were only semi-finished and required further processes such as side trimming, sanding and hand finishing was accepted. The material on record, including the statement of the Director and the RG-1 stage applicable to finished plywood, supported the claim that the goods had not reached the stage of finished excisable goods ready for storage without further processing.
Conclusion: The seized goods were not liable to confiscation, in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): whether the demand raised on the alleged clandestine removal of plywood and the consequential penalty were sustainable.
Analysis: The explanation regarding the disputed clearance was accepted, namely that 41 pieces were covered by the excise gate pass and 4 pieces had been issued as samples. On that basis, the alleged clandestine removal was not established.
Conclusion: The duty demand was set aside and, being consequential, the penalty was also set aside, in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order did not survive and the appeal succeeded in full.
Ratio Decidendi: Where excisable goods are shown to be semi-finished and the alleged clandestine removal is not proved on the evidence, confiscation, duty demand, and consequential penalty cannot be sustained.
TaxTMI 
