Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.44 seconds)Cce vs Arsh Castings Pvt. Ltd. on 30 September, 2005
Similarly, in the case of CCE vs. Arsh Casting Pvt. Limited (2010 (252) ELT 191 (HP)), the Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh held that the private records maintained by the staff of the Company cannot be made as the sole evidence to hold that clandestine removal of the goods is established and accordingly, the following point of law was decided in favour of the assessee:-
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S Shingar Lamps Pvt. Ltd.& Anr on 22 March, 2010
10. Similarly, in the case of CCE Chandigarh-1 vs. Shingar Lamps Pvt. Limited [2010 (255) ELT 221 (P&H)], the Honble High Court held that the private records which have been discovered during the raid may not be sufficient for holding clandestine production and removal but there should be some positive evidence suggesting clandestine production and removal.
Shalimar Rubber Industries & Ors vs Collector Of Central Excise, Cochin on 22 November, 2002
The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Shalimar Rubber Industries vs. Collector of Central Excise, Cochin - [2002(146) ELT 248 (SC)] 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.
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Gopi Synthetics Ltd., Alok Synthetics ... on 18 November, 2003
In the case of CCE vs. Omkar Textiles 2010 (259) ELT 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.
Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd., Etc. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 17 October, 1969
Similarly, no inference could be legally drawn against the Appellants of having manufactured texturised yarn out of the said polyester yarn and the clearance thereof, in a clandestine manner without the payment of duty. The Tribunal had also referred to the decision in Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J172) wherein the Apex Court has observed that no show cause notice or an order can be based on assumptions and presumptions. The findings based on such assumptions and presumptions without any tangible evidence will be vitiated by an error of law.
M/S. Takshila Spinners vs Cce Chanaigarh on 11 May, 2001
(Takshila Spinners v. CCE, supra).
M/S. Kothari Wire Industries vs Cce, Jaipur-I on 8 July, 2009
Similar views have been expressed by the Tribunal in the case of Haryana Petrochemicals Ltd., supra wherein the Tribunal has held that reliance cannot be placed on the documents maintained by a third party who did not have the courage to come forward for cross-examination in order to test the veracity and correctness of the private record maintained by him. It has also been held by the Tribunal in the case of Kothari Synthetics Industries v. CCE, Jaipur, 2002 (141) E.L.T. 558 (T) that entries made in the transport Register of the transport company could not be accepted as a conclusive proof of clandestine receipt of goods from that transport company for want of corroboration from any tangible evidence. Following the ratio of these decision, the duty demand cannot be upheld solely on the basis of uncorroborated statements and records of transporter. The statements tendered by the labourers can also not be relied upon by the Revenue as these persons were not produced for being cross-examined. Moreover, there is no corroboration of their statements with regard to the Trucks by which the goods were allegedly removed or the persons who received the goods. The Truck driver Shri Shiv Bahadur Yadav has also not been cross-examined and cleaner Shri Rakesh Kumar had deposed that the Bills/Invoices are supposed to be with the Driver and he being cleaner had no knowledge.
M/S Rana Papers Limited vs Cce, Meerut-I on 21 August, 2008
It is further observed that the Honble CESTAT in the case of Rama Shyama Papers Limited vs. CCE, Lucknow [2004 (160) ELE 494 (Tri. Del.)] came to the following conclusion in paras 9 and 10 of the judgment which are reproduced below:-
Mukeshbhai vs Patel on 9 April, 2012
6. It is observed from Para 3.1 of the show cause notice dated 01.5.2009 issued to the appellants that stock yard of M/s. Sunrise Enterprise, Mehsana was searched by the departmental officers and during such checks it was found by the officers that TMT Bars lying in the stock were embossed with VARSANA on each bar which was explained by Shri Mukeshbhai Virabahi Patel of M/s. Sunrise Enterprise have been manufactured by M/s. Varsana Ispat Limited, Kutch. Further, this paragraph also states that the stock lying in the stock yard of M/s. Sunrise Enterprise also had the stock received from M/s. Sakeen Alloys Pvt. Limited, but on verification of the stock with the invoices, the stock was found to have tallied with the documents available with M/s. Sunrise Enterprise. When the stock lying in the stockyard of M/s. Sunrise Enterprise was found to have tallied with the invoices available with M/s. Sunrise Enterprise then the request of the appellants for cross-examination of Shri Mukeshbhai V. Patel of M/s. Sunrise Enterprise was necessary to bring out the truth whether the records/ pen drive maintained by M/s. Sunrise Enterprise pertained to same stock which is received under duty paid invoices or otherwise.
1