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 upholds duty demand & dismissal of appeal due to lack of credible explanations & evidence</h1> <h3>M/s Mani Mahesh Ispat (P) Limited Versus Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax, Customs & Central Excise, Alwar</h3> M/s Mani Mahesh Ispat (P) Limited Versus Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax, Customs & Central Excise, Alwar - TMI Issues:1. Alleged evasion of Central Excise duty through suppression and clandestine removal of goods.2. Confirmation of duty demand based on shortage of M.S. ingots and unrecorded production.3. Admissibility of evidence and compliance with Rule 10 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.4. Allegations of clandestine removal based on recovered documents.5. Applicability of case laws and sufficiency of explanations provided.Analysis:1. The appellant was accused of evading Central Excise duty by suppressing production and clandestinely removing goods without payment. The Department discovered a shortage of 182.340 MT of M.S. ingots during a physical verification, leading to a duty amounting to Rs. 7,13,303. Further, 2486 ingots were not recorded in production records, indicating clandestine clearance.2. The appellant argued that the shortage was due to defective ingots sent for remanufacturing, supported by the Director's explanation. However, lacking evidence and record-keeping of defective ingots, the non-compliance with Rule 10 of Central Excise Rules was evident, justifying the duty demand.3. Rule 10 mandates maintaining proper daily records, which the appellant failed to adhere to, as admitted by the Director. Admissions serve as strong evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, making the Department's case sustainable based on the noticed shortage and non-compliance with record-keeping requirements.4. The allegation of clandestine removal was supported by recovered loose documents, which the appellant failed to explain satisfactorily. Despite claims of explanations by absent individuals, the appellant's failure to produce supporting evidence or witness statements weakened their defense.5. The Tribunal upheld the duty demand and dismissal of the appeal, emphasizing the lack of credible explanations for the shortage and clandestine removal. The cited case laws were deemed inapplicable, as the appellant failed to provide substantial evidence or documentation supporting their claims, leading to the unfavorable judgment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
