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>Court upholds duty demand & confiscation in clandestine removal case, stresses need for clear evidence</h1> <h3>M/s. The Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Raigad</h3> M/s. The Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Raigad - TMI Issues:1. Upholding charge of clandestine removal without documentary evidence2. Sustainability of order based on previous suit evidence3. Upholding charge of clandestine removal in proceedings without natural justice4. Invocation of longer period of limitation without evidence of suppressionAnalysis:Issue 1: Upholding charge of clandestine removal without documentary evidenceThe case involved an appeal challenging the Tribunal's decision confirming duty demand and confiscation of goods. The appellant argued that the Tribunal failed to consider that the goods were duty paid and presented evidence from a separate suit to support their claim. However, the Tribunal found that the evidence did not establish a correlation between the cleared goods and the seized goods. The Tribunal also noted inconsistencies in the appellant's versions regarding the goods, leading to the conclusion that there was suppression of facts and contravention of the Act to evade duty payment. The Tribunal upheld the charge of clandestine removal based on these findings.Issue 2: Sustainability of order based on previous suit evidenceThe appellant relied on evidence from a previous suit to support their case, claiming that the goods in question were duty paid. However, the Tribunal found that the evidence presented did not establish a clear correlation between the duty paid goods and the goods for which duty was demanded. The Tribunal also highlighted that the appellant failed to provide sufficient documentation to support their claims, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.Issue 3: Upholding charge of clandestine removal in proceedings without natural justiceThe appellant raised concerns about the denial of natural justice during the proceedings, specifically regarding the cross-examination of witnesses. However, the Tribunal found no violation of natural justice principles in the proceedings. The Tribunal considered the evidence presented and concluded that the appellant had been inconsistent in their explanations, leading to the decision to uphold the charge of clandestine removal.Issue 4: Invocation of longer period of limitation without evidence of suppressionThe Tribunal invoked a longer period of limitation based on the appellant's consistent withholding of information and clandestine removal of goods. The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to establish a correlation between the cleared goods and the seized goods, leading to the conclusion that there was suppression of facts. The Tribunal justified the invocation of the longer period of limitation based on these findings.In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal as it did not raise any substantial question of law. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision based on the findings of fact and the lack of tangible evidence presented by the appellant to support their claims. The judgment emphasized the importance of establishing a clear correlation between goods to avoid allegations of clandestine removal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
