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>Appeal dismissed for lack of evidence in Revenue evasion case. Duty, interest, penalty imposed.</h1> <h3>M/s. SS Alum Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE, Chennai - IV</h3> M/s. SS Alum Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE, Chennai - IV - TMI Issues:- Condonation of delay against the application- Dilatory tactics of the appellant- Clearance of goods without invoice- Evasion of Revenue intentionally- Duty liability, interest, and penalty- Examination of evidence and defense pleas- Manipulation in the production process- Evidence of unaccounted transactions- Application of mind by the adjudicating authority- Dismissal of the appealCondonation of Delay:The appellant was not present for condonation of delay against its application, prompting the issuance of a notice for explanation. The dilatory tactics of the appellant were evident from their conduct.Clearance of Goods Without Invoice:The Revenue presented evidence of clearances made by the appellant without proper invoices, leading to evasion of Revenue intentionally. Various pieces of evidence, including statements from factory personnel, supported the findings of unaccounted transactions.Duty Liability and Penalty:The adjudicating authority examined the appellant's pleas and evidence but found no support for their contentions. Consequently, the appellant was held liable for duty, interest, and penalty due to established unaccounted transactions in the statutory record.Manipulation in Production Process:Evidence indicated manipulation in the production process, with the use of more water and inferior quality goods being manufactured. The appellant's modus operandi of using unaccounted raw materials for clandestine removal was deemed questionable.Application of Mind by Adjudicating Authority:The adjudicating authority thoroughly examined relevant issues and evidence, concluding that there was a case of evasion of Revenue before him. The authority's findings were based on seized documents, corroborating evidence, and defense pleas of the appellant.Dismissal of the Appeal:Given the reasoned and speaking order passed by the adjudicating authority, where nothing presented in the grounds of appeal controverted the findings, the appeal was dismissed. The cumulative evidence on record pointed towards the appellant's unaccounted dealings causing evasion of duty, leading to the rejection of the appeal.
TaxTMI 