1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- 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.
<h1>Tribunal overturns duty & confiscation orders, grants relief to firm and partner.</h1> The tribunal set aside an Order-in-Appeal confirming duty, penalty, and confiscation of goods against a firm, as well as a personal penalty on the ... Confiscation and penalty - Clandestine manufacture and removal - Proof of Issues:Appeal against duty, penalty, and confiscation of goods; imposition of personal penalty on partner.Analysis:The judgment pertains to two appeals challenging an Order-in-Appeal that confirmed duty, penalty, and confiscation of goods against the firm, as well as imposed a personal penalty on the partner. The duty of rupees 1,67,919/- was confirmed for short inputs (copper wire/bar/ingots) discovered during a physical stock verification. However, the partner explained the shortage by stating that the material had been used for manufacturing final products, which were found in excess on the factory floor. The tribunal found a direct correlation between the short inputs and excess finished goods, indicating no clandestine removal of inputs. Consequently, the confirmation of duty on the short inputs was set aside due to lack of tangible evidence.Regarding the confiscation of excess finished goods, the tribunal found that the appellants were unable to enter the production in their records within the required 48 hours due to the timing of the stock verification visit. No other discrepancies in statutory records were detected apart from the seized goods. The tribunal concluded that the failure to enter the finished goods in the record was not a deliberate attempt to evade duty. As a result, the confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine were deemed unwarranted, and the impugned order in this regard was set aside.In light of the above analysis, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals of the appellants with consequential relief as per the law.