TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Excise Commissioner could reopen and recall a final determination of annual capacity of production on the basis of alleged fraud and forged invoices, and whether the statement of a third party recorded in another proceeding could be relied upon without cross-examination to invoke the extended period under the proviso to Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Analysis: The reopening power was examined in the context of the proviso to Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which could be invoked only if the Department first established fraud or suppression by admissible material. The statement of the partner of the crucibles manufacturer was recorded in another proceeding and was not proved as evidence in the present matter; it could not be treated as the assessee's admission. Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 did not make the statement admissible against the assessee, and Section 9-D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was also not satisfied because the maker was available but was not cross-examined. Since cross-examination of the maker of the statement and the investigating officer was denied, reliance on those materials was impermissible.
Conclusion: The Excise Commissioner had no valid material to reopen the concluded assessment or to sustain the demand on the alleged basis of fraud, and the question referred was answered in the negative, against the Department and in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The reference failed on the Department's contention and the reassessment based on the impugned statement and report was held unsustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: A concluded excise determination cannot be reopened under the fraud proviso unless fraud is first proved by admissible evidence, and a third-party statement recorded in another proceeding cannot be used against the assessee without compliance with the requirements of evidence and cross-examination.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
