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 penalties could be sustained on allegations of clandestine receipt of inputs and clandestine clearance of finished goods when the Revenue relied mainly on statements recorded during investigation and there was no corroborative evidence or compliance with the requirement of cross-examination.
Analysis: The allegation of clandestine manufacture and clearance rested on statements recorded during investigation and the inference drawn from them. No discrepancy was found at the assessee's premises, and the Revenue did not produce independent corroborative material to prove procurement of duty-free inputs, their use in manufacture, or clandestine clearance of the final product. A mere statement, without supporting evidence, was held insufficient to establish such serious allegations. The statements forming the basis of the demand were also not tested in accordance with Section 9D, and the assessee was not afforded effective cross-examination, which rendered the evidentiary foundation unsustainable. In the absence of tangible evidence, the charge remained unproved.
Conclusion: The demand of duty and the connected penalties were not sustainable and were set aside.