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 Decision on Duty & Penalties for Clandestine Goods Removal</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KANPUR Versus LATEX CHEMICALS</h3> COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KANPUR Versus LATEX CHEMICALS - 2005 (181) E.L.T. 138 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:Validity of setting aside duty and penalty confirmed against respondents by adjudicating authority.Analysis:The Revenue challenged the part of the impugned order where the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the duty and penalty confirmed against the respondents for clandestine removal of goods. The Revenue contended that the statements of the Director and employees of the respondent company were overlooked, and the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority should not have been reversed. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalties imposed on the respondents but set aside the confirmation of duty on the company. The Revenue argued that the confessional statements of certain respondents admitting to clandestine removal were ignored. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly gave preference to documentary evidence provided by the respondents, such as purchase invoices, registration certificates, and service reports, over the alleged confessional statements. The Commissioner (Appeals) found no evidence to support the clandestine manufacture and removal of goods during the disputed period. Consequently, the duty demand and penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority were set aside.In conclusion, after considering the arguments from both sides and reviewing the record, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeals of the Revenue. The Commissioner (Appeals) was found to have correctly given preference to documentary evidence over oral statements, leading to the decision to set aside the duty demand and penalties against the respondents. The Tribunal agreed with the findings that there was insufficient evidence to prove the clandestine manufacture and removal of goods by the respondents during the disputed period. The decision was based on a thorough analysis of the documentary evidence presented by the respondents, which contradicted the alleged confessional statements and supported the conclusion that no clandestine activities had taken place.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
