Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 482 (1.88 seconds)
Documents citing Collector Of Customs, Madras And Ors vs D. Bhoormul on 3 April, 1974

Commissioner,Customs (Preventive) ... vs Shakil Ahmad Khan on 5 February, 2019

Facts in the case of Collector of Customs Madras Vs. D. Bhoormull reported at 1983 (13) ELT 1546 (SC) are distinguishable and would not be applicable in the facts of the present case as there was no other evidence produced by the Customs department against the respondents except their confessional statement which could assist them in linking the respondents to the offence of smuggling.
Allahabad High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - S Hasnain - Full Document

Phil Ispat Private Limited vs Raipur on 13 November, 2018

in para 36 of their judgment has held that the decision in Collector of Customs, Madras Vs. D. Bhoormull (supra) was specific to the provisions of Sea Customs Act, 1878 pertaining to smuggling. Although it is observed by the Court that this initial onus of proof on the Department can be sufficiently discharged by circumstantial evidence this was in the context of the fact that provision itself shifted the burden on the person in whose possession the contraband is found. As far as the CE Act is concerned, there is no such provision that raises a presumption and shifts the burden on to the person who is charged with clandestine removal of excisable goods. Section 14 of the CE Act provides for a detailed enquiry involving the gathering of evidence through documents and recording of statements. It does not dispense with the principles of natural justice or the general principles of fairness that govern all departmental inquiries.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

C.C.E.& C., Indore vs M/S S.K. Industries on 9 December, 2016

32. Smuggling is clandestine conveying of goods to? avoid legal duties. Secrecy and stealth being its covering guards, it is impossible for the Preventive Department to unravel every link of the process. Many facts relating to this illicit business remain in the special or peculiar knowledge of the person concerned in it. On the principle underlying Section 106, Evidence Act, the burden to establish those facts is cast on the person concerned : and if he fails to establish or explain those facts, an adverse inference of facts may arise against him, which coupled with the presumptive evidence adduced by the prosecution or the Department would rebut the initial presumption of innocence in favour of that person, and in the result prove him guilty. As pointed out by Best in `Law if Evidence (12th Edn. Article 320, page 291), the presumption of innocence is, no doubt, presumptio juris : but every days practice shows that it may be successfully encountered by the presumption of guilt arising from the recent (unexplained) possession of stolen property, though the latter is only a presumption of fact. Thus the burden on the prosecution or the Department may be considerably lightened even by such presumption of fact arising in their favour. However, this does not mean that the special or peculiar knowledge of the person proceeded against will relieve the prosecution or the Department altogether of the burden of producing some evidence in respect of that fact in issue. It will only alleviate that burden to discharge which very slight evidence may sight. [Emphasis supplied] In the present proceedings also, the activities and the transactions perpetrated by the respondents are unaccounted manufacture and clandestine clearances to evade payment of Central Excise duty and these are definitely in the nature of white collar crimes like smuggling, evasion of taxes/duties of State etc., and observations of the Honble Supreme Court made in the above decision are aptly applicable to the present facts. Therefore, the appellants cannot argue that for all the transactions, there is need of making 100% proof available. The Department has been able to prove its case of unaccounted manufacture and clandestine clearances beyond reasonable doubt as discussed and analysed in earlier paras of this order.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs P.R. Metrani on 9 July, 2001

18. Mr. Indrakumar relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Customs v. D. Bhoormal, . There the court was considering with regard to Section 167(8) of the Customs Act. While considering the various provisions of the Act, the Supreme Court holds that in terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act the Department is deemed to have discharged its burden if it adduces only so much evidence, circumstantial and direct as is sufficient to raise a presumption in its favour with regard to existence of the facts sought to be proved. The Supreme Court in the said case rules as under (page 867) :
Karnataka High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 23 - R Gururajan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next