Just a moment...
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%
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 the demand of Central Excise duty and consequential penalty could be sustained on the basis of a salary file and the statement of the Managing Director, without independent corroborative evidence of clandestine manufacture and removal.
Analysis: The demand rested essentially on a private salary file said to contain weekly production figures and on the statement of the Managing Director. The records showed that the file was primarily maintained for payment of wages to labourers and also related to lap stage production, while the department did not establish actual shortage, excess production, clearances, receipt of sale proceeds, buyers, delivery details, or any other corroborative material. In clandestine removal matters, the allegation must be supported by clinching evidence, and a mere uncorroborated private record or statement is insufficient to sustain duty demand and penalty.
Conclusion: The duty demand and penalty were not sustainable on the evidence relied upon, and the appeal succeeded in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Clandestine removal cannot be established merely from private records or a statement unless the department adduces independent corroborative evidence of production, clearance, and receipt of consideration.