Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the demand of duty and penalty could be sustained on allegations of clandestine removal when the Revenue relied mainly on recovered records, test certificates, loading advice, input-output ratio and a statement, but failed to produce independent corroborative evidence of procurement, manufacture, clearances, buyers or monetary flow.
Analysis: The demand rested on documents recovered from the factory, input-output ratio and an inculpatory statement, but the record did not show further investigation at the level of transporters, purchasers, raw material procurement, actual manufacture, or the buyers' end. Clandestine removal is a positive charge and must be proved by tangible, affirmative and corroborative evidence, not by assumption, presumption or doubt. The Commissioner (Appeals) had therefore correctly found that the allegation was unsupported by the essential evidentiary foundation and that, once the duty demand failed, the connected penalty and interest consequences also could not survive.
Conclusion: The allegation of clandestine removal was not proved and the order dropping the demand, penalty and interest was ly upheld; the Revenue's appeal failed.
Ratio Decidendi: A charge of clandestine removal can be sustained only on the basis of positive, independent and corroborative evidence establishing the clandestine manufacture and removal, and not on mere suspicion, presumption or incomplete material.