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 Revenue could sustain the demand of duty and penalty on the basis of parallel invoices and statements when the alleged material was not corroborated by independent evidence and the statement relied upon was promptly retracted.
Analysis: The demand was founded on photocopies of parallel invoices and statements recorded during investigation. The searches at the factory, office and residential premises did not yield incriminating documents, there was no discrepancy in finished stock, and the department did not produce independent evidence such as proof of procurement of raw material, excessive electricity consumption, transport records, delivery to buyers, or payment trail. The statement relied upon by the department was retracted the very next day, and the record did not supply the corroboration necessary to support clandestine removal. The Tribunal's finding was therefore based on appreciation of evidence and did not disclose any substantial question of law.
Conclusion: The demand of duty and penalty could not be sustained, and the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: A charge of clandestine removal under central excise law cannot be upheld merely on uncorroborated parallel invoices and a retracted statement; independent, unimpeachable evidence is required to sustain duty demand and penalty.