Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.58 seconds)The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 100 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
M/S G-Tech Industries vs Union Of India And Anr on 22 June, 2016
The Hon‟ble P & H High Court in case of M/s.
G-Tech Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [2016 (339) E.L.T. 209 P&H]
has held that Section 9D of the Act has to be construed strictly, as
mandatory and not merely directory. We have seen that the learned
Commissioner denied the request of cross-examination on the ground
that it would further complicate the issue. We have also considered the
following judgements cited by the appellant :-
K. Rajagopal vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 22 January, 2002
18. Further, it the case of K. Rajagopal vs. Commissioner of Central
Excise, Madurai (supra), Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-I vs.
Nirmal Bhandari (supra) and Triveni Engineering and Industries vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad (supra), this Tribunal and
Hon'ble High Court Courts have taken the same view. Therefore, the
32
Excise Appeal Nos.70253, 70254, 70255 & 70256 of 2013
demand of Rs.1,93,90,293/- sought to be confirmed on the basis of
diary notes is not sustainable, accordingly, dropped.
M/S Hindustan Machines vs Cce, Delhi on 14 February, 2013
A co-ordinate Bench
of this Tribunal has, in another decision, reported in the E.L.T. issue of
5-8-2013 (after hearings in the present appeals were concluded), once
again reiterated the same principles, after considering the entire case-
law on the subject [Hindustan Machines v. CCE [2013 (294) E.L.T. 43].
Members of Bench having hearing initially differed, the matter was
referred to a third Member, who held that clandestine manufacture
and clearances were not established by the Revenue. We are not going
into it in detail, since the learned Counsels on either side may not have
had the opportunity of examining the decision in the light of the facts
of the present case. Suffice it to say that the said decision has also
tabulated the entire case-law, including most of the decisions cited
before us now, considered them, and come to the above conclusion.
Article 265 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
M/S Pan Parag India Ltd vs Cce, Kanpur on 23 May, 2012
In
yet another decision of a co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal [Pan Parag
India v. CCE, 2013 (291) E.L.T. 81], it has been held that the theory
of preponderance of probability would be applicable only when there
are strong evidences heading only to one and only one conclusion of
clandestine activities. The said theory, cannot be adopted in cases of
weak evidences of a doubtful nature. Where to manufacture huge
quantities of final products the assessee require all the raw materials,
there should be some evidence of huge quantities of raw materials
being purchased. The demand was set aside in that case by this
Tribunal."