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 dismisses Revenue's appeals due to lack of evidence in excise duty evasion case</h1> <h3>CCE, Indore Versus M/s Magnum Steels Limited, M/s B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., M/s I.R.S. Industries Pvt. Ltd., I.C. Jindal, Director, R.C. Sharma, Ashok Maheshwari, Virbhuti Gupta, Arvind Agrawal, Ajay Bhardwaj, Director</h3> CCE, Indore Versus M/s Magnum Steels Limited, M/s B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., M/s I.R.S. Industries Pvt. Ltd., I.C. Jindal, Director, R.C. Sharma, Ashok ... Issues:Appeals against order by Commissioner of Central Excise regarding duty evasion through clandestine removal of excise goods.Analysis:1. The Revenue appealed against the Commissioner's order dropping proceedings against the manufacturing assessees due to lack of evidence of excess raw material, clandestine production, or financial transactions. The Revenue argued based on documents recovered from the units indicating excess production, electricity theft cases, and duty calculations based on private records.2. The main contention was regarding the calculation of duty demand based on a handwritten chart recovered from a person present in the factory premises, projecting clandestine manufacture and clearance of steel ingots against the manufacturing units. The respondents contested the grounds of appeal, highlighting inconsistencies in entries and meter readings, as well as lack of evidence regarding the employment status of the person who prepared the chart.3. The Revenue argued that the duty demand was not based on Rule 173E but on collected evidence, while the respondents emphasized that the consumption of electricity alone was insufficient to ascertain normal production. The original authority noted serious inconsistencies in the entries and lack of corroboration for the duty demand based on the extrapolation of small data.4. The case against the manufacturing units and Magnum Steels Limited was based on allegations of unaccounted production and clearances, supported by diary entries and statements from buyers and transporters. However, the original authority found discrepancies in the projected production capacity, reliance on selective data, and lack of evidence on various aspects relevant to production.5. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, citing serious infirmities in the Revenue's case both legally and factually. The lack of sufficient supportive evidence, reliance on presumptions, and unexplained gaps led to the conclusion that the duty demand could not be sustained based on piecemeal and uncorroborated evidence. The judgment emphasized the need for a preponderance of probability to sustain allegations of clandestine removal, which was lacking in the Revenue's case.
TaxTMI 