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 grants stay to Gutkha manufacturer on duty demands citing lack of evidence</h1> <h3>CHANDAN TOBACCO CO. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VAPI</h3> The Tribunal granted unconditional stay petitions in favor of the Gutkha manufacturer appellants, M/s. Chandan Tobacco Co., due to lack of concrete ... Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Clandestine removal, proof Issues:Stay petitions arising from an impugned order confirming duty, interest, and penalty against a Gutkha manufacturer for alleged clandestine removal based on discrepancies in Supari consumption and production quantities.Analysis:1. The impugned order confirmed duty, interest, and penalty against M/s. Chandan Tobacco Co. for the period November 2002 to December 2005. The demand was based on discrepancies in Supari consumption per Gutkha pouch, with the Revenue alleging overstating quantities to evade duty. The Commissioner noted discrepancies in suppliers' records, raising doubts on the genuineness of Supari supply. However, the analysis report of SIIR Delhi indicated Menthol content but lacked details on other ingredients. The Department's calculations were based on assumptions and presumptions, lacking concrete evidence for the entire period.2. The appellants argued that the demand was unjustified as it relied on a test report from a specific lot, which should not apply to previous clearances. They contended that minor variations in Supari consumption did not conclusively prove evasion. The observations made by the Commissioner were seen as tacit approval of the appellants' claims regarding Supari consumption variances. The appellants had already deposited a portion of the demanded amount, indicating compliance with immediate clearances.3. The Tribunal found merit in the appellants' arguments, concluding that they had established a prima facie case in their favor. As a result, the stay petitions were granted unconditionally, allowing relief to the appellants. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of concrete evidence and legal principles in determining duty liabilities, highlighting the need for specific and tangible proof to support allegations of evasion.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision to grant relief to the appellants based on the lack of concrete evidence supporting the duty demand for the specified period.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
