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 voids show cause notice, duty demand unsustainable. Impugned order set aside, appeal allowed.</h1> <h3>INDIAN OIL CORPORATION Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., PATNA</h3> The Tribunal found the show cause notice void due to being issued by an incompetent officer, and lacking proper application of mind. Additionally, the ... Demand - Clandestine removal Issues:Clandestine removal of Mixed Raw Naptha (M.R.N.) to evade Central Excise duty.Detailed Analysis:1. Show Cause Notice Allegations:- A show cause notice accused the appellant of clandestinely removing 1884.853 K.L. of M.R.N. to evade Central Excise duty.- The notice was based on investigations following a letter from the Refinery, indicating migration of M.R.N. causing contamination of Naptha supplied to M/s. H.F.C. Ltd.2. Appellant's Defense:- The appellant denied the allegations, claiming the demand of Rs. 42,48,232.48 was misconstrued and lacked proper evidence.- The Deputy Collector of Central Excise sought a cause from the appellants.- The Collector confirmed duty on 422 KL of unaccounted M.R.N., imposing a penalty of Rs. 25,000, leading to the appeal.3. Legal Grounds Challenged:- The appellant argued that the notice was void as it was issued by an incompetent officer, beyond the limitation period, invoking Section 11A.- The appellant contended that the case lacked positive evidence of clandestine removal under Rule 9 of Central Excise Rules, placing the burden of proof on the Revenue.4. Judgment:- The Tribunal found the notice void as it should have been issued by the Collector, not the Superintendent, despite later attempts to regularize it.- The Collector's letter did not meet the legal requirements, lacking proper application of mind, leading to the notice being deemed unsustainable.- On the merits, the Tribunal agreed that the Revenue's case lacked positive evidence of clandestine removal, rendering the duty demand unsustainable.5. Conclusion:- The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants, providing consequential relief.This detailed analysis highlights the legal intricacies surrounding the issue of clandestine removal of M.R.N. to evade Central Excise duty, focusing on procedural irregularities, burden of proof, and the lack of concrete evidence in the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
