Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.32 seconds)
Sarin & Sarin vs C.C.E Kanpur on 3 March, 2026 cites

M/S. Pandit D.P. Sharma vs C.C.E., Calcutta-Iv on 18 May, 2001

15. Further, in the case of Pandit D.P. Sharma vs. CCE, Calcutta-II 2001 (137) E.L.T. 692 (Tri.-Cal.) the Tribunal held that onus to proof that the sale proceeds is of clandestinely removed goods lies on the Revenue, which is to be discharged by production of an affirmation, tangible and positive evidence. The relevant paragraph is reproduced as under:-
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta Cites 0 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Central Excise ... vs Sakeen Alloys Pvt Ltd on 1 December, 2014

The onus to establish such clandestine activities, resulting in confirmation of demand is placed heavily on the Revenue and is required to be discharged by production of sufficient evidences. Further a case of clandestine removal cannot be upheld on the basis of certain statements alone as held in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Saakeen Alloys Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (308) E.L.T. 655 (Guj.)/2014] 46 taxmann.com 42 (Guj.)/[2014] 45 GST 723 (Guj.)] wherein Gujarat High Court rejected the appeal of the Revenue by making following observations in Para 10.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 42 - Full Document

Ugam Chand Bhandari vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Madras on 5 May, 2004

23. I observe that no penalty is leviable on the Appellants as there is no willful suppression. All the documents have been duly filed by the Appellants and the case of the Department is based on wrong calculation. A case of willful suppression attracting penalty is not made out, especially considering that the Department's allegations have no legs of evidence to stand on. Reliance is placed on the decision of Ugam Chand Bhandari vs. Excise Appeal No.721 of 2007 35 Excise Appeal No.722 of 2007 Excise Appeal No.724 of 2007 CCE, Madras 2004 (167) E.L.T. 491 (S.C.). The relevant paragraph is reproduced as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

S. Kotteswaran vs Collector Of Central Excise (Customs) on 28 February, 1996

The mere non-accountal of the amount and as to how they received the same is not sufficient evidence to hold that these are sale proceeds of smuggled silver. The Income Tax Department may have some cause of action against the appellants in this matter. But as far as the Customs authorities are concerned, this piece of evidence i.e. non-explanation of its acquisition by these appellants is not sufficient to prove that these represent the sale proceeds of smuggled goods. The Department should have produced some initial evidence to discharge their onus and if they have done so, then in that case the non-explanation of these appellants taken together may have constituted the case against them. But the Department cannot throw the burden on the appellant to prove their acquisition of this amount and in the absence of that proof it cannot be held that this amount represents the sale proceeds of smuggled goods. In this view of the matter, we hold that the confiscation of the above said Excise Appeal No.721 of 2007 23 Excise Appeal No.722 of 2007 Excise Appeal No.724 of 2007 amount are not in accordance with the law and we set aside the same and order that these amounts be returned to the appellants. The appeals are accordingly allowed."
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 Next