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 clandestine manufacture and removal of acrylic yarn from the raw material shown in Form IV had been established, and whether the case could sustain anything more than a charge of incorrect maintenance of raw material accounts.
Analysis: The record did not establish beyond doubt that the 4500 kg. shown as acrylic fibre had been converted into acrylic yarn or removed without payment of duty. The evidence produced at the appellate stage created doubt, while the departmental material failed to conclusively prove clandestine manufacture and removal. On the facts, the case at the most disclosed incorrect maintenance of the raw material account in Form IV, for which the proper course would have been a penalty under Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, rather than action predicated on clandestine removal under Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
Conclusion: The allegation of clandestine manufacture and removal was not proved, and the appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Where clandestine manufacture and removal are not established beyond doubt, liability cannot be sustained on that basis and the matter may lie only in an incorrect statutory account, attracting the appropriate record-keeping penalty.