Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 37 (0.37 seconds)The Customs Act, 1962
Section 28 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 112 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
The Customs Tariff Act, 1975
Commr.Of Cen.Exc.& Customs Surat vs Suresh Synthetics . on 27 January, 2016
In the case of COMMISSIONER
OF CUSTOMS Vs. SURESH SYNTHETICS 2007 (216) ELT 662 (SC) it was
held by the Apex Court that customs duty is not sustainable on the raw
material when the finished goods have been cleared on payment of excise
duty in DTA.
The Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. And ... vs The Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 25 June, 1979
4.1 In the case of Bhor Industries Ltd. v. UOI - 1991 (51) E.L.T. 284
(Bombay - HC) - the Hon'ble High Court observed that if the show cause
notice does not fulfill the requirement of show cause notice (required as per
10 | P a g e C/10012,10015/2022
E/10013,10014/2022
C/11458,11473,11659/2017
correct rules) wrong mention of correct rule will be bad in law and notice can
be set aside.
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S Brims Products on 15 September, 2008
No statement of any buyer recorded to whom clearance was allegedly made,
no transportation details provided, no evidence of any receipts of payment
from open market buyers produced. Therefore, in the given set of facts and
in absence of any adverse evidence, it cannot be said that finished goods
were clandestinely cleared in open market. There are several judicial
pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court, High Courts and Tribunal
wherein it has been consistently held that in the case of clandestine
manufacture and removal of goods, Revenue has to prove it beyond doubt.
15 | P a g e C/10012,10015/2022
E/10013,10014/2022
C/11458,11473,11659/2017
We rely on the Hon'ble High Court judgment in the case of Commissioner of
Central Excise v. Brims Products - 2011 (271) E.L.T. 184 (Pat.) wherein it
was held that:-
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Gopi Synthetics Ltd., Alok Synthetics ... on 18 November, 2003
In the case of CCE v. Omkar Textiles - 2010
(259) E.L.T. 687 (Guj.), it was held by the Jurisdictional Gujarat High
Court that onus is on the Revenue to furnish the evidence to prove the
charges of clandestine removal and it is not sufficient if some confessional
statements have been given by the Director of the Company.