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>Appeals Upheld for Dewas Fabrics Ltd. & Vijay Vishwaroop, Successful for Suresh Sharma. Importance of Proof of Export</h1> <h3>M/s DEWAS FABRICS LTD, SHRI SURESH SHARMA, SHRI VIJAY VISHWAROOP Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE</h3> M/s DEWAS FABRICS LTD, SHRI SURESH SHARMA, SHRI VIJAY VISHWAROOP Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE - 2015 (317) E.L.T. 610 (Tri. - Del.) Issues Involved:1. Duty demand and penalties imposed on M/s Dewas Fabrics Ltd. (DFL) and individuals.2. Validity of proof of export submitted by M/s DFL.3. Right to cross-examination.4. Liability and involvement of individuals (Shri Vijay Vishwaroop and Shri Suresh Sharma).5. Applicability of Notification No.20/2002-CE for duty benefit.Detailed Analysis:Duty Demand and Penalties:The appeals were filed against an order confirming a duty demand of Rs. 76,27,365/- along with interest and an equal penalty against M/s DFL. Additionally, a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs each was imposed on M/s Super Fabrics, Shri Suresh Sharma, Shri Vijay Vishwaroop, and Mohd. Shoaib Sheikh. The current appeals are by M/s DFL, Shri Suresh Sharma, and Shri Vijay Vishwaroop, and do not affect the penalties on M/s Super Fabrics and Mohd. Shoaib Sheikh.Validity of Proof of Export:M/s DFL, a 100% EOU, claimed to have exported polyester dyed and grey fabrics. However, investigations revealed discrepancies such as non-matching seals on shipping documents and the absence of goods at the port. The shipping agent and CHA denied handling the goods or documents. M/s DFL failed to submit original proof of export, relying instead on uncertified copies. The tribunal emphasized that the onus to provide valid proof of export lies with M/s DFL, which they failed to do, making them liable for the duty demand.Right to Cross-Examination:The appellants argued that they were not allowed to cross-examine various individuals, making the statements inadmissible. The tribunal acknowledged the jurisprudence that the right to cross-examination is crucial, citing relevant case laws. However, it concluded that the inability to produce valid proof of export itself justified the duty demand, irrespective of the cross-examination issue.Liability and Involvement of Individuals:- Shri Vijay Vishwaroop: Admitted the lack of original proof of export and other critical details. He was found to have knowingly allowed the duty-free clearance of goods to M/s Super Fabrics, which had no authorization. His involvement in the fraudulent activity was evident, justifying the penalty imposed on him.- Shri Suresh Sharma: His statement was exculpatory, and no direct evidence linked him to the fraud. The tribunal noted that he was not in a position of authority at the time of the clearances and was not allowed to cross-examine his accuser. Consequently, the penalty on him was set aside.Applicability of Notification No.20/2002-CE:The appellants claimed the benefit of Notification No.20/2002-CE, which applies to domestic clearances of EOUs using indigenous materials. The tribunal rejected this claim, stating that the clearances were made under the pretext of export and did not comply with the relevant provisions of the Export and Import Policy.Conclusion:The appeals by M/s DFL and Shri Vijay Vishwaroop were rejected, upholding the duty demand and penalties. However, the appeal by Shri Suresh Sharma was allowed, and the penalty imposed on him was set aside. The tribunal emphasized the importance of providing valid proof of export and the legal consequences of failing to do so.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
