TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court overturns duty demand, penalties, and interest for mis-describing goods, emphasizing need for corroborating evidence.</h1> <h3>HRS FIBRES (P) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., NEW DELHI</h3> The appeals were successful as the court set aside the duty demand, penalties, and interest imposed on the appellants for mis-describing goods to evade ... Clandestine removal Issues:1. Duty demand and penalties imposed on the appellants for mis-description of goods and evasion of central excise duty.2. Reliance on witness statements without cross-examination and lack of corroborating evidence.3. Legal value of witness statements and admissibility as evidence.4. Comparison with a previous case regarding reliance on uncross-examined witness statements.5. Lack of reliable tangible evidence to prove allegations against the appellants.Analysis:1. The appeals were filed against the order confirming duty demand, penalties, and interest on appellants for mis-describing goods to evade central excise duty. The company was found clearing cotton yarn without payment of duty by mis-describing it in invoices. Other appellants were penalized for receiving duty-evaded goods.2. The Commissioner relied on witness statements without allowing cross-examination, leading to doubts about their legal validity. Lack of corroborating evidence raised concerns about the basis of the duty demand and penalties imposed.3. Witness statements lacked corroboration and were not presented to the company for verification. The alleged slips used as evidence were not shown to the company, diminishing their credibility. The statements did not specifically mention the mis-description of goods by the company.4. Reference was made to a previous case where reliance on uncross-examined witness statements was deemed insufficient to prove clandestine removal of goods. The comparison highlighted the importance of corroborating evidence and the inadmissibility of unverified statements.5. Due to the absence of reliable tangible evidence, the allegations against the company for mis-describing goods and against other appellants for receiving duty-evaded goods were not proven. The impugned order was set aside for all appellants, allowing their appeals with consequential relief as per the law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
