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 overturns duty demand due to lack of evidence in 'bright bars' shortage case.</h1> <h3>Avinash Forming Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai</h3> The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals)'s order confirming a demand for duty due to an alleged shortage of finished goods by a ... Clandestine removal - shortage of finished goods - Held that: - There is no allegation of shortage of stock detected through physical inspection. The allegation is entirely based on intimation furnished in accordance with a statute to another agency of Government of India - In absence of any evidence, to conclude or even to speculate, that there is shortage of stock of raw material or finished product, no valid ground remains to recover duty on presumption of clandestine removal - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues Involved: Alleged shortage of finished goods leading to demand for duty.Analysis:The case involved a manufacturer of 'bright bars' using stainless steel products as inputs. The Revenue alleged a shortage of finished goods based on the details submitted in Annexure 4 to Form 3CD, suggesting a non-accountal of inputs that should have been in stock. The impugned order by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) confirmed the demand, prompting the appeal.The appellant's counsel pointed out a previous order by the same authority that held a similar demand for a different period to be incorrect. The dispute spanned from 2007-08 to 2011-12, initiated by a show cause notice in 2013. Notably, there was no physical inspection revealing stock shortage; the allegation was solely based on information provided to another government agency. The Tribunal emphasized the distinct purposes of different statutes and the inevitability of processing loss in manufacturing. It was deemed improper to equate a declaration under one statute as grounds for statutory duty demand, especially without evidence of stock shortage or clandestine removal.Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, highlighting the lack of valid grounds to recover duty solely based on presumptions without concrete evidence.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
