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>Successful appeal due to lack of evidence on clandestine manufacture of steel ingots. Importance of substantial evidence emphasized.</h1> <h3>CCE, Ludhiana Versus M/s. Arora Alloys Ltd.</h3> CCE, Ludhiana Versus M/s. Arora Alloys Ltd. - 2016 (338) E.L.T. 300 (Tri. - Del.) Issues: Alleged clandestine manufacture and clearance of non-alloy steel ingots without accountal or payment of central excise duty.In this case, the appellants were engaged in manufacturing non-alloy steel ingots under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The central excise officers alleged that the appellants had clandestinely increased their furnace capacity and manufactured and cleared non-alloy steel ingots without proper record-keeping or duty payment. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the duty demand and imposed penalties and interest. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) considered the appellants' contentions and noted the lack of corroborative evidence from the revenue to support the allegations. The Commissioner observed that the demand was based on assumptions and presumptions without sufficient proof. Additionally, the Commissioner accepted the explanation regarding 8 ingots, considering them as rejected/defective ingots from previous production. The lack of verification or investigation by the revenue regarding raw material procurement and sales further weakened the case against the appellants, leading to the appeal being set aside.The revenue, in their subsequent appeal, failed to provide any new evidence supporting the allegations of clandestine manufacture and clearance of the ingots. The appellate authority's detailed order addressed all aspects of the case, highlighting that the revenue's case relied heavily on the presence of 8 ingots in excess during the officers' visit, which alone was insufficient to prove clandestine removal without additional corroborative evidence. The judgment concluded that the charges could not be upheld solely based on this observation, affirming the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision. Consequently, both appeals filed by the revenue were rejected, emphasizing the importance of substantial evidence in establishing allegations of clandestine activities in excise matters.
TaxTMI 