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 reinstates confiscation order for duty evasion due to missing entries, penalizing failure to debit in records.</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & C. EX., VAPI Versus DAN DETERGENTS LTD.</h3> The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal in a case concerning alleged clandestine removal of goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the ... Demand - Clandestine removal Issues: Alleged clandestine removal of goods, duty demand, penalty imposition, confiscation of goods, non-debiting in RG-23A Part-II/PLA, imposition of penalty under Rule 226 of Central Excise Rules, 1944.The judgment involves an appeal filed by the Revenue against an order by the Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise (Appeals) regarding alleged clandestine removal of goods. Central Excise Officers seized goods and vehicles outside and inside the factory premises due to discrepancies in records. A show cause notice was issued, leading to an adjudicating order demanding duty, imposing penalties, and confiscating goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the goods were covered by Central Excise invoices, indicating no intention to evade duty. The order of confiscation was set aside, and no penalty was imposed for evasion. However, a penalty was imposed for failing to make a debit entry in RG23-A Part-II/PLA.The judgment references cases where the maintenance of proper accounts is crucial, and failure to do so renders parties liable to penalties. It highlights that non-accountal of goods in prescribed records is a violation, regardless of their condition. The Tribunal's decision in similar cases emphasizes that goods removed without payment of duty are liable to confiscation. Failure to maintain combined records of product, storage, and delivery of excisable goods can lead to confiscation.Upon examination, the Tribunal found that the Deptt. had established a clear case of duty evasion, which was not acknowledged in the Commissioner (Appeals) order. The order lacked mention of the non-existence of RG-I and PLA entries for the invoices in question. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order entirely and allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue, emphasizing the clear case of evasion of duty.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
