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>Excise Dispute Resolved: Evidence Gaps Lead to Dismissal of Revenue's Appeal Under Rule 9</h1> <h3>Commissioner Versus Abba Rubbers</h3> HC upheld CESTAT's ruling in excise dispute, dismissing Revenue's appeal against assessee. The court found no merit in challenging the Tribunal's ... Clandestine movement of tread rubber and pre-cured tread rubber without payment of duty - evidence of shortage of raw materials - HELD THAT:- The CESTAT, after hearing the learned counsel for parties held that the Commissioner had noted that for manufacture of the main item, the assessee had to procure raw sulphur, raw rubber and there was no shortage or excess of raw materials in the books. The CESTAT considering the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee held that while there is no merit in the appeal of the Revenue, the assessee had clearly explained with evidence that the material had come for replacement and evidence was produced. After examining the contents and assimilating the relevant facts, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee - Having bestowed anxious consideration to the facts and materials which led to the impugned decision of the Tribunal, there are no ground to interfere in this appeal. This appeal, therefore, fails. The Kerala High Court, in a judgment delivered by Justices Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan and Anu Sivaraman, addressed an appeal involving the Central Excise & Customs and the respondent assessee. The case centered on allegations of clandestine movement of tread rubber and pre-cured tread rubber without duty payment. The Commissioner of Appeals had previously dropped a demand of Rs. 3,22,025/- due to lack of evidence but confirmed a demand based on evidence of raw material shortages, imposing penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q.The CESTAT reviewed the appeals from both the Revenue and the assessee. It found no merit in the Revenue's appeal, noting the assessee had adequately explained and evidenced the material's replacement. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal. The High Court, after careful consideration, found no basis to interfere with the Tribunal's decision, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
