Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the duty demand, penalties, and findings of clandestine manufacture and removal were sustainable on the basis of the evidence on record.
Analysis: The firm against whom duty was confirmed had an independent existence, excise registration, and disclosed manufacturing premises. The evidence relied upon by the department, such as receipt of raw material at the office address, use of invoices, sealing of premises, and the brand name on the products, did not by itself establish that another unit manufactured and cleared the goods. There was no corroboration from excess raw material, excess electricity consumption, labour deployment, stock discrepancies, intercepted goods, statements from the Ministry of Defence, or proof of flow back of money. The allegations of dummy operation and clandestine clearances were thus not supported by cogent evidence, and presumptions could not substitute legal proof.
Conclusion: The duty demand and penalties were not sustainable and were set aside.
Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, with consequential relief available in law.
Ratio Decidendi: Allegations of clandestine manufacture and removal must be proved by cogent and convincing evidence, and cannot rest on conjectures, presumptions, or isolated suspicious circumstances.