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%
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.
Issues: Whether the allegation of clandestine removal of excisable goods was proved on the basis of the cancellation of invoice, stock verification, and surrounding circumstances.
Analysis: The case rested on the cancellation of one invoice, the absence of the disputed quantity in stock during verification, and the inference drawn from the fact that the buyer and seller were group concerns located nearby. The explanation offered was that the invoice was cancelled for want of sufficient duty balance and that the goods were in filtration tanks. There was no positive documentary or other corroborative evidence showing clandestine production, removal, or actual clearance to the consignee. Circumstances such as proximity of the parties, short interval between invoice issue and cancellation, and a different view on the stage of manufacture were held insufficient by themselves to establish clandestine clearance.
Conclusion: The allegation of clandestine removal was not proved and the finding against the assessee was unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order could not be sustained because the adverse finding was based on inference rather than reliable evidence, and the assessee was entitled to consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: A charge of clandestine production and removal must be supported by positive and reliable evidence, and cannot be upheld on assumptions, presumptions, or surrounding circumstances alone.