Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful)

TaxTMI AI Drafter workflow from input facts to final legal draft Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2007 (8) TMI 556

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Respondent. [Order]. -  The Revenue is in appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) holding that the difference between the balance sheet figures and figures in statutory records i.e. RT.12 returns submitted to the department cannot lead to a conclusion of clandestine removal so as to lead to duty demand and imposition of penalty. 2. I have heard ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is indulged in clandestine clearance, in view of the explanation given by them which has not been found to be faulted. The ld. SDR's relies on the Tribunal's order in Kothari Shah Texturisers P. Ltd v. CCE, Surat [2006 (196) E.L.T. 116] to support the contention that clandestine removal has been established by the difference in figures in the balance sheet and the statutory records. However, I fi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eld that there was no evidence on record to prove clandestine removal of the goods; that no one from the market has come forward to accept the purchase of goods from the appellant and there was no evidence to prove excess receipt of inputs by the appellant company during the year 1998-99 and there was no detention or seizure of unaccounted goods from the assessee's factory. In the present case als....