Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 38 (0.77 seconds)
Documents citing Shalimar Rubber Industries & Ors vs Collector Of Central Excise, Cochin on 22 November, 2002

Shri Kartik R Shah vs Ahmedabad-Iii on 18 January, 2019

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shalimar Rubber Industries v. Collector of Central Excise, Cochin [2002 (146) E.L.T. 248 (S.C.)] has also held that once the statement is retracted and the assessee asked for cross-examination then if such cross-examination is denied, the department cannot make such statements as the basis 42 | P a g e E/10151- 10153,11433,11436,12276/2018 for concluding that there was clandestine removal.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bihar Foundary &Amp; Casting Ltd vs Ranchi on 9 August, 2019

In the case of Gurpreet Before we part, we Rubber Industries v. Collector of Central Excise reported in would like to discuss some of 1996 (82) E.L.T. 347 (Tri.) = 1996 (12) RLT 569, the Tribunal has set aside the demand of duty based upon the entries in a private note-book (diary) of an honorary worker in the appellant firm holding that except the said diary, there was no other evidence such as installed capacity of the factory, raw materials, utilisation, labour employed, power consumed, goods actually manufactured and packed etc., to prove the alleged clandestine production of the goods and removal of the same from the factory.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Thakar Traders vs Surat-I on 6 December, 2019

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shalimar Rubber Industries v. Collector of Central Excise, Cochin [2002 (146) E.L.T. 248 (S.C.)] has also held that once the statement is retracted and the assessee asked for cross-examination then if such cross-examination is denied, the department cannot make 13 | P a g e E/11822/2018, E/12083/2016 such statements as the basis for concluding that there was clandestine removal.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Shiv Shakti Sponge Iron Limited, vs Coms,C.Ex,Cus &Amp; S.Tax - Bbsr-I on 17 December, 2019

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shalimar Rubber Industries v. Collector of Central Excise, Cochin [2002 (146) E.L.T. 248 (S.C.)] has also held that once the statement is retracted and the assessee asked for cross-examination then if such cross- examination is denied, the department cannot make such statements as the basis for concluding that there was clandestine removal.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Faizan Texturising vs Bharuch on 11 April, 2022

The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Shalimar Rubber Industries v. Collector of Central Excise, Cochin [2002 (146) E.L.T. 248 (S.C.)] has also held that once the statement is retracted and the assessee asked for cross-examination then if such cross-examination is denied, the department cannot make such statements as the basis for concluding that there was clandestine removal.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 58 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajhans Impex Pvt Ltd vs Mundra on 6 June, 2022

The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Shalimar Rubber Industries v. Collector of Central Excise, Cochin [2002 (146) E.L.T. 248(S.C.)] has also held that once the statement is retracted and the assessee asked for cross-examination then if such cross-examination is denied, the department cannot make such statements as the basis for concluding that there was clandestine removal.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Metal Gems vs Daman on 7 October, 2022

8|Page E/12432/2019, E/10032-10036,10075/2020 4.2 We also find that in present matter Appellant had sought cross- examination of 18 deponents out of which department could only produce 4 deponents for cross-examination. It is well settled law that though the statements carry good persuasive value but such untested statements cannot be made stand-alone basis for arriving at an adverse conclusion against the assessee. Though an admission or a statement is one of the important piece of evidence but the same has to bear the test of veracity through the tool of cross examination. Further, as per various decisions, it is well settled law that no reliance can be placed on the deponents' statements unless he is allowed to be cross examined for testing the correctness of his statement. Reference in this regard can be made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Godrej Pacific Tech Ltd. v. Computer Joint India Ltd. - 2008 (228) E.L.T. 507 (S.C.); Shalimar Rubber Industries v. Collector of Central Excise, Kochin - 2002 (146) E.L.T. 248 (S.C.); Arya Abushan Bhandar v. UOI - 2002 (143) E.L.T. 25 and Laxman Export Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise - 2002 (143) E.L.T. 21 (S.C.). In all these decisions, it stands specifically observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the oral statements of third party implicating the assessee for clandestine purchase of raw material, with the subsequent written denial, cannot be relied upon for establishing the charge of clandestine manufacture unless such person is either examined or cross examined. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arya Abhushan Bhandar has held that non- production of the witness for cross-examination results in breach of natural justice and cannot be accepted on the ground that no prejudice would be caused to the appellant for reason of non-production. In the case of Laxman Exports Ltd., the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that denial of cross- examination of raw material supplier results in denial of the appellant's right to contest the veracity of the statement made by the other person and accordingly the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the majority order of the Tribunal vide which the denial of cross examination was held to be not suffering from any infirmity. It is settled law that if the persons are not offered for cross-examination, their statements cannot be relied upon. since in the present matter other persons did not turn up for cross-examination, hence their statement cannot be relied upon for confirmation of duty demand against the Appellant.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jagdish Shanker Trivedi And Ors. vs Commissioner Of Customs on 27 July, 2005

(e) The decision in Shalimar Rubber Industries versus Collector of Central Excise, Cochin reported in 2002 (146) ELT 248 (SC) was cited for he proposition that no reliance can be placed on the so called oral statement of the raw material supplier as he was not subjected to examination and cross-examination during adjudication. The Supreme-Court observed in para 9 of the judgment that if the collector can accept a statement allegedly made by a partner of the Universal Agencies which was not confirmed by his oral evidence in the inquiry and not subjected to cross-examination It failed to understand how he could reject the letter sign by the very same person where he had given a diametrically opposed statement
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 37 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Rawalwasia Ispat Udyog Ltd. vs Cce on 19 January, 2005

4.3 The learned Advocate also mentioned that the invoice book had been signed by the Director, Shri R.P. Agarwal for the purpose of pre-authentication and subsequently the Despatch Clerk, Shri Dharampal had misused the same to blackmail the Appellants. He emphasised that since no cross-examination of any of the persons alleged to have been involved with the preparation of the invoices and/or alleged clandestine removal of goods had been granted, the alleged statement cannot at all be the basis for confirming demand of duty. He relied upon the judgment in the case of Shalimar Rubber Industries v. CCE, Cochin, 2002 (84) ECC 718 (SC) : 2002 (146) ELT 248 (Sc) wherein the Supreme Court has held that no reliance can be placed on the oral statement of a person who has not been subjected to cross-examination during adjudication.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 18 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next