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 rules for appellant in duty demand appeal, citing lack of evidence and erroneous presumption</h1> <h3>Navjot Cement & Construction Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE, Ludhiana</h3> The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant in the appeal against duty demand for clandestinely removing manufactured goods. The appellant successfully ... Demand - clandestine removal - Held that: - The case of the Revenue is based only on the presumption that there is no production loss of inputs. Admittedly, fly ash which is input for manufacturing were cement is of such nature that it cannot be used 100% as input in manufacturing of the cement, therefore, the basic presumption of the Revenue is that there is no wastage or loss erroneous. Further, I find that no positive evidence has been produced on record by the Revenue to allege clandestinely excess manufactured cement and clearance of cement - the allegation of the clandestinely manufacture of goods and clearance of cement is not sustainable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee. Issues: Appeal against duty demand for clandestinely removal of manufactured goods.Analysis:The appellant, engaged in manufacturing Ordinary Portland Cement, was accused of clandestinely clearing finished goods without paying duty. The Revenue alleged that no loss or wastage occurred during the manufacturing process, leading to the demand for duty. The appellant contended that fly ash, an input, cannot be used entirely in cement manufacturing, challenging the Revenue's claim of excess production and clearance without duty payment. The Revenue's case relied on the presumption of no production loss, but the tribunal found this erroneous as fly ash cannot be fully utilized in cement production. Moreover, no concrete evidence was presented by the Revenue to support the allegation of excess production and clearance without duty payment. Consequently, the tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order due to lack of merit. The appeal was allowed, granting consequential relief, if any.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
