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 overturns duty order due to lack of evidence, ruling in favor of plywood manufacturer.</h1> <h3>M/s REGAL PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES PVT LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VISAKHAPATNAM-I CENTRAL EXCISE BUILDING PORT AREA VISAKHAPATNAM</h3> M/s REGAL PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES PVT LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VISAKHAPATNAM-I CENTRAL EXCISE BUILDING PORT AREA VISAKHAPATNAM - TMI Issues Involved:Manufacture of plywood under Chapter heading 44, demand for Central Excise duty, imposition of penalty, reliance on statement of Accountant, lack of further verification or evidence, calculation of raw material requirement, validity of impugned order.Analysis:The Appellant, engaged in manufacturing plywood, faced a demand for Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 14,62,376 with interest for the period from 16.12.2000 to 31.3.2004 due to alleged non-accounting of the entire quantity of plywood manufactured. The demand was based on the assumption that 2 sq. mtrs. of face veneer are needed for 1 sq. mtr. of plywood production. The case rested heavily on the statement of the Appellant's Accountant, Shri P.K. Dash, who vaguely mentioned the veneer requirement. The Appellant's counsel argued that no further verification was conducted, no samples were drawn for verification, and no evidence of clandestine removal or excess raw material consumption was presented. Additionally, no technical expert's statement or supporting literature was provided to validate the department's calculation.Upon review, the Tribunal noted the lack of concrete evidence supporting the department's claim that 2 sq. mtrs. of face veneer are essential for manufacturing 1 sq. mtr. of plywood. The Tribunal concurred with the Appellant's counsel that besides Shri P.K. Dash's statement, no substantial evidence, technical analysis, or verification was undertaken to substantiate the claim. Consequently, the Tribunal found the impugned order lacking merit and set it aside, allowing the appeal in favor of the Appellant. The decision was announced in open court on 27/5/2015, providing the Appellant with consequential relief, if applicable.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
