TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the allegation of clandestine removal of inputs was made out on the basis of shortage noticed in the wastage recorded in the RG 23A Part II register. (ii) Whether duty was payable on the unaccounted wastage material found not properly accounted for by the assessee.
Issue (i): Whether the allegation of clandestine removal of inputs was made out on the basis of shortage noticed in the wastage recorded in the RG 23A Part II register.
Analysis: The shortage noticed by the department was in the stock of wastage as recorded in the RG 23A Part II register, and no shortage of inputs was found. The department did not produce corroborative evidence to establish secret removal of inputs. The conclusion that the assessee had removed inputs clandestinely was held to be based on surmise and conjecture and was not supported by the surrounding circumstances.
Conclusion: The allegation of clandestine removal of inputs was not sustained and was decided in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether duty was payable on the unaccounted wastage material found not properly accounted for by the assessee.
Analysis: The assessee admitted that the wastage shown in the register had not been properly accounted for. While the charge of clandestine removal was rejected, the unaccounted wastage itself remained unexplained and attracted duty liability.
Conclusion: Duty was held payable on the unaccounted wastage and this issue was decided against the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent that the allegation of clandestine removal was rejected, but the assessee was held liable to pay duty on the unexplained unaccounted wastage.
Ratio Decidendi: A charge of clandestine removal cannot be upheld without corroborative evidence, but duty liability may still arise on unaccounted wastage that remains unexplained.
TaxTMI 
