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 upholds allegations of clandestine manufacture and evasion, supported by concrete evidence and confessions.</h1> <h3>KK TOBACCO COMPANY, LAXMI KANT PANDEY S/o SURYA NATH PANDEY Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, ALLAHABAD</h3> KK TOBACCO COMPANY, LAXMI KANT PANDEY S/o SURYA NATH PANDEY Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, ALLAHABAD - TMI Issues: Allegations of clandestine manufacture and evasion of central excise duty.Analysis:1. The case involved a detailed examination of the facts surrounding a raid conducted at the manufacturing premises of a tobacco company. The officers found incriminating documents, raw materials, and unaccounted production of gutkha, leading to the detention and seizure of goods valued at a significant amount.2. Statements from individuals involved, such as the proprietor's brother and father, confirmed the unauthorized production and storage of raw materials for manufacturing gutkha. The proprietor's absence and the operation of machines without proper records indicated a deliberate attempt to evade excise duty.3. Further investigations revealed confessions from suppliers of tobacco and supari, supporting the allegations of clandestine production. The detailed diary recovered during the raid provided concrete evidence of the unauthorized production and clearance of gutkha without payment of excise duty.4. The adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the allegations and ordered confiscation based on the evidence presented. The lack of contestation from the appellants and the admission of guilt reinforced the case of misdeclaration and suppression of production to evade excise duty.5. The tribunal, after reviewing all the evidence and statements, concluded that the appellants were involved in clandestine manufacture and evasion of central excise duty. The rejection of the appeals was based on the clear manifestation of illegal activities and the lack of grounds for interference in the original orders.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of clandestine manufacture and excise duty evasion, emphasizing the importance of evidence, statements, and legal proceedings in determining the guilt of the appellants.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
