Just a moment...
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 confiscation of goods and truck, redemption fine, and penalty were sustainable on the allegation of clandestine removal and non-maintenance of the RG-I register.
Analysis: The Department relied on the absence of the duplicate invoice copy and the incomplete RG-I register, but the physical verification by the officers did not reveal any excess or shortage of stock. The duplicate and extra copies of invoices were treated as identical, and the explanation that envelopes had been handed to the driver was not effectively rebutted. The record did not establish that the assessee had removed the goods clandestinely with intent to evade duty, and the burden to prove such removal remained on the Revenue. The order also noted that when the goods and truck were not available for confiscation, the redemption fine could not be sustained.
Conclusion: The allegations of clandestine removal were not proved, and the confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty were set aside in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Clandestine removal and intent to evade duty must be proved by cogent evidence, and mere non-production of a duplicate invoice copy or absence of RG-I entries, without supporting proof of shortage or removal, is insufficient to sustain confiscation, redemption fine, or penalty.