TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Tribunal grants benefit of doubt in steel ingots case, emphasizing proof over suspicion.</h1> The Tribunal granted the benefit of doubt to the appellants in a case involving allegations of clandestine production and removal of M.S. Steel Ingots. ... Demand - Clandestine removal - Evidence Issues involved:The issues involved in the judgment include allegations of clandestine production and removal of M.S. Steel Ingots, duty demand, reliance on statements and documents, contradictions in statements, evidentiary value of documents, and sufficiency of evidence for establishing charges of clandestine removal.Allegations of Clandestine Production and Removal:The case involved allegations of clandestine production and removal of M.S. Steel Ingots by the appellant, leading to a duty demand and penalty. The Collector relied on various statements and documents to support the allegations, including statements from individuals involved, note book entries, and octroi receipts.Contradictions in Statements and Documents:The appellant's counsel highlighted contradictions in the statements provided by the driver of the truck, emphasizing the contradictory nature of the statements and the lack of reliability. The appellant also questioned the evidentiary value of the octroi receipts and the lack of direct evidence linking the goods to the appellants.Reliance on Statements and Documents:The Collector relied on the statements of the driver, note book entries, and octroi receipts to establish the charges of clandestine removal. The Collector found the explanations provided by the appellants unconvincing and considered the evidence presented as sufficient to support the allegations.Sufficiency of Evidence and Benefit of Doubt:Upon review, the Tribunal found that while the material raised suspicions about the appellants' conduct, the evidence presented did not establish a sufficient nexus to prove the charge of clandestine removal conclusively. Citing the principle that suspicion cannot substitute for proof, the Tribunal granted the benefit of doubt to the appellants and allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned order.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
