Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.43 seconds)Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd., Etc. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 17 October, 1969
In the case of Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Union of India (supra) the Hon'ble apex court has held that show-cause notice cannot be issued and duty confirmed based on assumptions and presumptions and the demand of duty cannot be sustained unless there is clear and categorical evidence for removal of goods without payment of duty. There has to be tangible evidence before a conclusion can be drawn in respect of production and clearance of goods. Any conclusion drawn on the basis of inferences involving unwarranted assumptions are vitiated by an error of law. Further, in the case of molasses, the State excise authorities have a physical control and special supervising staff are posted in the factory and distillery unit to safeguard the case of State excise revenue on molasses and allied products. The State excise authorities, in this case, have not made any allegation of shortage of molasses or any unaccounted production of molasses.
Lml Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 25 February, 2003
In view of this position, when there is a physical control of the department of State excise and also records based control by the Central Excise authorities there cannot be any allegation of clandestine removal of goods without substantive evidence as has been held in the case of LML Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (supra).
Collector Of Central Excise, Baroda vs Kosan Metal Products Limited on 26 October, 1988
Further, the molasses stored in katcha pits were removed during December, 1996 to February, 1997 and even if something was left in the pit, sample drawn in February, 1997 indicating that such molasses had deteriorated due to rain water, the said report cannot be applied to the removals made in December, 1996 to February, 1997. As regards the 3569.3 MTs of molasses in the steel tank No.1 on which duty has been demanded on the basis of sample drawn on 11/11/1997, they had drawn another sample from the very same tank on 10/12/1997 under the supervision of the State excise officials which was also sent for analysis to the Western Maharashtra Development Corporation Limited and the said Corporation vide its test report dated 18/12/1997 shows TRS percentage to be 45.93% as against the department's test report indicating 2.61%. In view of this position it is their contention that there is no evidence whatsoever, relied upon by the department to prove that they have indeed produced and cleared huge quantity of molasses as alleged in the show-cause notice. They have also placed reliance on the following case laws, namely, (1) Oudh Sugar Mills vs. Union of India 1978 ELT J172 (SC); (2) LML Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 1991 (51) ELT 434; (3) Leather Chemicals and Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta 1984 (15) ELT 451; (4) Commissioner of Central Excise, Baroda vs. Kosan Metal Products 1988 (38) ELT 573 (SC); (5) Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur 1994 (72) ELT 710 and (6) Ashok SSK vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 2000 (177) ELT 708 in support of the above contentions.
M/S Twenty First Century Wire Rods Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & ... on 9 June, 2009
5. The department's contention is that the assessee has not maintained the books of accounts correctly which has been admitted by various officers of the assessee-company and the samples drawn and test reports thereon clearly indicate that the liquid said to be molasses stored in the steel tank No.1 and katcha pits had very low TRS percentage and they are unfit for distillation. Accordingly, the quantity of molasses should have been diverted and replaced with some other liquid indicating clear evidence of clandestine production and removal. The department also relies upon a number of judgments in support of their contention, namely, Twenty First Century Wire Rods Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Goa 2010 (250) ELT 94; Commissioner of Central Excise, Madras vs. Systems & Components Pvt. Ltd. 2004 (165) ELT 136 (SC); Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai - II 2008 (221) ELT 373; Lucky Dyeing Mills P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Surat 2008 (222) ELT 543; Saif Electronics Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi 2006 (205) ELT 676 and Madhukar SSK Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nasik 2005 (190) ELT 508.
Commissioner Of C. Ex., Madras vs Systems And Components Pvt. Ltd. on 12 February, 2004
5. The department's contention is that the assessee has not maintained the books of accounts correctly which has been admitted by various officers of the assessee-company and the samples drawn and test reports thereon clearly indicate that the liquid said to be molasses stored in the steel tank No.1 and katcha pits had very low TRS percentage and they are unfit for distillation. Accordingly, the quantity of molasses should have been diverted and replaced with some other liquid indicating clear evidence of clandestine production and removal. The department also relies upon a number of judgments in support of their contention, namely, Twenty First Century Wire Rods Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Goa 2010 (250) ELT 94; Commissioner of Central Excise, Madras vs. Systems & Components Pvt. Ltd. 2004 (165) ELT 136 (SC); Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai - II 2008 (221) ELT 373; Lucky Dyeing Mills P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Surat 2008 (222) ELT 543; Saif Electronics Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi 2006 (205) ELT 676 and Madhukar SSK Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nasik 2005 (190) ELT 508.
Shri Manishkumar Bagdawala, Shri ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & ... on 22 March, 2001
5. The department's contention is that the assessee has not maintained the books of accounts correctly which has been admitted by various officers of the assessee-company and the samples drawn and test reports thereon clearly indicate that the liquid said to be molasses stored in the steel tank No.1 and katcha pits had very low TRS percentage and they are unfit for distillation. Accordingly, the quantity of molasses should have been diverted and replaced with some other liquid indicating clear evidence of clandestine production and removal. The department also relies upon a number of judgments in support of their contention, namely, Twenty First Century Wire Rods Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Goa 2010 (250) ELT 94; Commissioner of Central Excise, Madras vs. Systems & Components Pvt. Ltd. 2004 (165) ELT 136 (SC); Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai - II 2008 (221) ELT 373; Lucky Dyeing Mills P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Surat 2008 (222) ELT 543; Saif Electronics Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi 2006 (205) ELT 676 and Madhukar SSK Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nasik 2005 (190) ELT 508.
Leather Chemicals And Industries Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 25 November, 1983
It is also a well settled position of law that in the case of clandestine removal, the department has to adduce evidence and the department cannot make allegations based on conjunctures and surmises as has been held in the case of Leather Chemicals and Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (supra). One could cite several judgments on the subject matter to show that the department has to produce substantial and reliable evidence to prove the case of clandestine production and removal which the department has failed miserably in this case.
R.K. Chemical Industries Private Ltd. vs Superintendent Of Central Excise, ... on 5 October, 1983
Further, the molasses stored in katcha pits were removed during December, 1996 to February, 1997 and even if something was left in the pit, sample drawn in February, 1997 indicating that such molasses had deteriorated due to rain water, the said report cannot be applied to the removals made in December, 1996 to February, 1997. As regards the 3569.3 MTs of molasses in the steel tank No.1 on which duty has been demanded on the basis of sample drawn on 11/11/1997, they had drawn another sample from the very same tank on 10/12/1997 under the supervision of the State excise officials which was also sent for analysis to the Western Maharashtra Development Corporation Limited and the said Corporation vide its test report dated 18/12/1997 shows TRS percentage to be 45.93% as against the department's test report indicating 2.61%. In view of this position it is their contention that there is no evidence whatsoever, relied upon by the department to prove that they have indeed produced and cleared huge quantity of molasses as alleged in the show-cause notice. They have also placed reliance on the following case laws, namely, (1) Oudh Sugar Mills vs. Union of India 1978 ELT J172 (SC); (2) LML Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 1991 (51) ELT 434; (3) Leather Chemicals and Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta 1984 (15) ELT 451; (4) Commissioner of Central Excise, Baroda vs. Kosan Metal Products 1988 (38) ELT 573 (SC); (5) Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur 1994 (72) ELT 710 and (6) Ashok SSK vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 2000 (177) ELT 708 in support of the above contentions.
Chicago Penumatic India Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 4 November, 2003
5. The department's contention is that the assessee has not maintained the books of accounts correctly which has been admitted by various officers of the assessee-company and the samples drawn and test reports thereon clearly indicate that the liquid said to be molasses stored in the steel tank No.1 and katcha pits had very low TRS percentage and they are unfit for distillation. Accordingly, the quantity of molasses should have been diverted and replaced with some other liquid indicating clear evidence of clandestine production and removal. The department also relies upon a number of judgments in support of their contention, namely, Twenty First Century Wire Rods Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Goa 2010 (250) ELT 94; Commissioner of Central Excise, Madras vs. Systems & Components Pvt. Ltd. 2004 (165) ELT 136 (SC); Chicago Pneumatic India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai - II 2008 (221) ELT 373; Lucky Dyeing Mills P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Surat 2008 (222) ELT 543; Saif Electronics Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi 2006 (205) ELT 676 and Madhukar SSK Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nasik 2005 (190) ELT 508.