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 upholds duty demand & penalties for Gutkha clearance without payment, stresses need for substantial evidence</h1> <h3>SP. TOBACCO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., INDORE</h3> SP. TOBACCO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., INDORE - 2004 (178) E.L.T. 646 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:Appeal against order-in-appeal passed by Commissioner (Appeals) regarding clearance of Gutkha without payment of duty, discrepancy in stock of raw material and finished product, retracted statement of Managing Director, reliance on computer-generated sheets, demand of Central Excise duty, penalty imposition, applicability of case laws.Analysis:The appellant filed an appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) concerning the clearance of Gutkha without payment of duty. During a factory search, discrepancies in raw material and finished product stock were found, leading to a show cause notice proposing confiscation of goods and demand of Central Excise duty. The Managing Director's statement admitting clearance without duty payment was a crucial factor. The adjudicating authority confiscated goods, imposed penalties, and ordered redemption. The appeal resulted in a reduction of penalties but not the duty demand.The appellant contended that the computer-generated sheets belonged to a sister concern and were related to sweet supari, not Gutkha. They also claimed the Managing Director's statement was retracted the next day. However, the Revenue argued that the Managing Director did not retract the admission of clearance without duty payment, justifying the duty demand based on his initial statement.The appellant tried to correlate entries in the sheets with their sister concern's clearances but failed to provide concrete evidence or proof of retraction. They cited case laws where private slips were not considered sufficient evidence for duty demands without additional proof of excess or shortage. However, in this case, excess raw material and final products were found, not entered in statutory records, with the Managing Director confirming the entries related to Gutkha clearance. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's reliance on these cases due to the specific circumstances of the present case, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the duty demand and penalties, emphasizing the significance of the Managing Director's initial statement and the lack of substantial evidence supporting the appellant's claims regarding the computer-generated sheets and retraction. The decision highlighted the importance of concrete evidence in challenging duty demands and penalties in excise cases.
TaxTMI 