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>Tribunal dismisses Revenue's appeal due to lack of evidence in alleged duty evasion case</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JALANDHAR Versus HARCHARAN & BROTHERS</h3> COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JALANDHAR Versus HARCHARAN & BROTHERS - 2004 (168) E.L.T. 454 (Tri. - Del.) Issues involved: Challenge to the correctness of the order-in-appeal reversing the order-in-original and setting aside duty demand and penalty for alleged clandestine removal of goods without duty payment.Summary:Issue 1: Alleged Clandestine Removal of GoodsThe Revenue challenged the order-in-appeal that set aside duty demand and penalty for clandestine removal of goods. The SDR argued ample evidence existed for the removal without duty payment during the period in question. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) ignored this evidence. The SDR contended the impugned order should be set aside. On the contrary, the Respondent's advocate supported the correctness of the impugned order.Judgment:The Tribunal found that the case against the respondents for duty evasion was based on documents seized by the Income Tax authorities, without independent verification by the Department. No evidence was collected to substantiate the charge of clandestine removal, such as excess raw material purchase or electricity consumption. The Department did not verify the alleged buyers/consignees or record their statements during the investigation. The respondents' claim of income from other sources was not considered. The Commissioner (Appeals) rightly observed that the charge of clandestine removal was based on assumptions and presumptions, lacking proof accepted by the respondents or the Department. Consequently, the impugned order was upheld, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.
TaxTMI 