TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
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>Manufacturers' penalties overturned, remand for lack of evidence and findings.</h1> <h3>LUMINOUS ELECTRONICS LTD. & ORS. Versus CCE, DELHI-II</h3> The judgment set aside confiscation and penalties for Appellant No.1, a manufacturer, due to lack of evidence for clandestine removal. Appellant Nos. 2 ... Central Excise - Clandestine removal - No statutory records have to be maintained when raw material purchased from unregistered dealer and credit is not availed - In the absence of any contrary evidence clandestine removal not established - Case remanded Issues:Violation of Central Excise Rules by appellants, Confiscation of seized goods, Imposition of penalties, Non-accountal of finished goods and excess raw materials, Allegations of clandestine removal, Duty paying documents, Findings by appellate authority, Set aside confiscation and penalties for appellant No.1, Remand for appellant Nos. 2 & 3.Analysis:The judgment deals with three appeals against an order upholding violations of Central Excise Rules. Appellant No.1, a manufacturer, was found with excess finished goods and raw materials during a visit, leading to confiscation and penalties. The appellate authority rejected their contentions of purchasing excess raw materials from unregistered suppliers. The judgment notes that if raw materials were procured from unregistered dealers without availing Modvat credit, recording in statutory records is not mandatory. The explanation for excess finished goods was accepted, and lack of corroborative evidence for clandestine removal led to setting aside confiscation and penalties for appellant No.1.For appellant Nos. 2 & 3, the appellate authority failed to provide findings. Duty paying documents were produced, indicating discharge of duty liability, but were not considered. The judgment remands the case for a fresh consideration with a personal hearing. Consequently, the appeals of appellant Nos. 2 & 3 are allowed by way of remand to the appellate authority. The judgment concludes by allowing the appeal of appellant No.1 and remanding the appeals of appellant Nos. 2 & 3 for further proceedings.
TaxTMI 
