1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- 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.
<h1>Revenue's Appeal Dismissed Over MMF Shortages</h1> The Revenue's appeal against the Order confirming a demand and penalties for shortages of 8000 LMs of MMF in a specific lot was rejected by the ... Demand - Shortage - Actual shortage Issues involved: Appeal against the Order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting Revenue's appeal.Summary:The case involved the processing of fabrics by the respondents, where shortages of 8000 LMs of MMF were found in a specific lot during a search. Various persons' statements were recorded, leading to proceedings confirming a demand and imposing penalties. The Order was set aside on appeal for de novo adjudication after allowing cross-examination. In the fresh adjudication, a demand of Rs. 17,317/- was confirmed for the detected shortages in the specific lot, with an equal penalty imposed. The Revenue appealed this decision, which was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals).The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the Revenue's appeal after careful consideration of the case records, facts, and submissions. It was noted that the allegation of clandestine removals was not proven beyond the specific lot in question, and the statements did not align with physical evidence. The appeal was dismissed due to contradictions between statements and physical evidence, leading to the clearance of goods by the respondent upon duty payment.The Revenue's appeal referenced the earlier remand allowing cross-examination, which revealed the unreliability of the statements. The Commissioner (Appeals)'s reasoning regarding the clearance of goods against other lot numbers clandestinely was also considered, questioning why those goods were not found short during the factory search. The decision to restrict the demand to the actually detected shortages was upheld as just, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal.The appeal filed by the Revenue was ultimately rejected, with the decision pronounced in court on 15-12-2008.