TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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 rules in favor of appellants due to insufficient evidence for duty demand and penalties</h1> The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, finding that the duty demand and penalties imposed were not sustainable due to lack of concrete evidence. ... Demand - Clandestine manufacture and removal Issues involved:The case involves a duty demand of Rs. 3,31,921/- against the appellants, penalties, and interest imposed by the adjudicating authority based on a shortage of finished goods noticed during a stock taking conducted by Central Excise officers.Summary:The appellants challenged the duty demand and penalties imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals) after the order-in-original confirmed the shortage of finished goods. The officers used an empirical method for weight estimation, which the appellants disputed. The department claimed correctness based on the Panchnama, signed by three persons from the factory, while the appellants argued the shortage was theoretical without actual weighment.Upon hearing both sides, it was acknowledged that the stock position was estimated, with the Works Manager providing input on weight fluctuations of different forged varieties. With 31 varieties in stock, the Tribunal emphasized the necessity of actual physical weighment to prove shortage conclusively. The method used by the authorities could raise suspicion but was deemed insufficient as proof.Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, holding that the charges could not be sustained due to lack of concrete evidence. The appeal was allowed, and the lower authorities' orders were set aside.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
