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>Commissioner finds no duty on alleged clandestine formaldehyde, citing lack of evidence & practicality over theory.</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR Versus PRACHI RESINS PVT. LTD.</h3> COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR Versus PRACHI RESINS PVT. LTD. - 2014 (308) E.L.T. 518 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:1. Alleged clandestine manufacture and clearance of formaldehyde.2. Calculation of production based on chemical formula.3. Lack of corroborative evidence for excess production and clandestine removal.Issue 1: Alleged Clandestine Manufacture and Clearance of FormaldehydeThe case involved the appellant, engaged in the manufacture of formaldehyde, facing allegations of suppressing production and clandestine clearance. The revenue initiated proceedings proposing a confirmation demand and penalties. The original adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and penalties, leading to an appeal by the revenue. The Commissioner (Appeals) considered various factors affecting production, such as purity of air, voltage availability, water purity, and catalyst purity, which impact the formation of formaldehyde from methanol. The Commissioner observed that production cannot always align with theoretical precision due to these factors, highlighting the difference between science and technology. The Commissioner found no physical tests conducted to substantiate the claim for production as per the chemical formula. As a result, the Commissioner held that no duty was payable on the alleged clandestine manufacture and removal of formaldehyde, setting aside the demand and penalties.Issue 2: Calculation of Production Based on Chemical FormulaThe revenue appealed against the Commissioner's decision, arguing that apart from the chemical formula, there was no evidence of clandestine removal. The revenue acknowledged that charges of clandestine removal cannot be upheld solely based on theoretical productions calculated from a chemical formula. The revenue emphasized that formaldehyde production is a chemical process influenced by factors like water and air purity, voltage fluctuations, and catalyst impurities. No physical experiments were conducted by the revenue to determine actual production. The absence of corroborative evidence led to the confirmation of demand being rightfully set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). Consequently, the appeal filed by the revenue was rejected.Issue 3: Lack of Corroborative Evidence for Excess Production and Clandestine RemovalThe judgment highlighted the importance of considering practical factors influencing production rather than relying solely on chemical formulas. It emphasized the need for corroborative evidence to substantiate claims of excess production and clandestine removal. The lack of physical tests and supporting evidence led to the dismissal of the revenue's appeal. The judgment underscored that theoretical calculations alone are insufficient to prove clandestine activities in manufacturing processes, especially in complex chemical reactions like formaldehyde production.
TaxTMI 