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 overturns duty demand and penalties; emphasizes need for concrete evidence.</h1> <h3>DURGA TRADING COMPANY Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., LUCKNOW</h3> DURGA TRADING COMPANY Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., LUCKNOW - 2002 (148) E.L.T. 967 (Tri. - Del.) Issues Involved:The judgment involves issues related to duty and penalty confirmation against a company appellant, clandestine removal of goods, lack of concrete evidence, and imposition of penalties under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules.Duty and Penalty Confirmation:The appeals were filed against an order confirming duty and penalty against the company appellant and penalties on other appellants. The company was engaged in manufacturing pan masala and various discrepancies were found in stock and removal of goods without payment of duty.Lack of Concrete Evidence:The Counsel argued that there was insufficient evidence to prove the clandestine supply of raw materials and removal of goods without payment of duty. The Commissioner's order was deemed to be based on conjectures and surmises, lacking concrete proof.Imposition of Penalties:The Commissioner affirmed duty on the company for shortages in stock, based on presumptions regarding clandestine activities. However, the Tribunal found that there was no substantial evidence to support the charges of clandestine removal and duty evasion.Legal Precedents and Evidence:The Tribunal referred to legal principles stating that charges of clandestine removal must be based on tangible evidence, not assumptions. Citing previous cases, it emphasized the need for concrete proof to establish duty evasion.Judgment and Relief:The Tribunal set aside the duty demand and penalties against the company due to lack of concrete evidence. However, certain other demands and penalties were upheld as they were not contested. The penalties imposed under Rule 209A were deemed unjustified and set aside for lack of evidence.Conclusion:The impugned order was modified, and the appeals were partly allowed with relief granted based on the lack of concrete evidence to support the duty and penalty charges. The judgment highlighted the importance of tangible evidence in establishing charges of duty evasion and clandestine activities.
TaxTMI 