Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.21 seconds)
C.C.E. Chandigarh vs M/S. Kailash Hosiery Company on 16 March, 2015 cites

M/S Pan Parag India Ltd vs Cce, Kanpur on 23 May, 2012

ix. Pan Parag India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Kanpur [2013 (291) ELT 81 (Tri.)] 9.2 It was further urged on behalf respondents that the report of the Sales Tax Department seizing the truck carrying the goods cannot be used against them. Findings in adjudication order basing on report of sales tax authority does not bind the central excise authority to hold against respondents. The blank copy of invoices is not the evidences since Shri Nirmal Singh who authorised release of the goods was neither an employee of the respondent manufacturer nor he was connected to any dealer of the goods. The driver carrying the goods in the truck did not say that the goods came from the premises of the respondents. Parallel invoices were brought by unscrupulous persons to cause damage to the respondents. Examination of the documents by Govt. examiner did not establish the case of Revenue. Signature of Shri Madan Lal, Director on the seized documents was not his signature nor of Shri Praveen Kumar. Therefore, those are unreliable documents and cannot be used against respondents.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 9 - Cited by 32 - Full Document

Collector Of Customs, Bombay vs East Punjab Traders And Ors. on 6 November, 1996

Plea of unrealiability of photocopies failed to sustain when signature of director of respondent company therein was found to be same as reported by Govt. document examiner. Blank copies of invoices found from invoice book show ill intention of respondent manufacturer in absence of any explanation therefor. Goods in the factory of respondent manufacturer was found during search to have been unaccounted. No doubt copy of copy is inadmissible in evidence as has been held the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Customs, Bombay Vs. East Punjab Traders [1997 (089) ELT 0011 (SC)], but in the present case, parallel invoices were not the only material to hold clandestine removal. There are several other contributory factors as argued by Revenue and found by learned Adjudicating Authority established clandestine removal of goods made by respondent manufacturer with the aid of the dealers causing evasion of excise duty. None of the arguments of Revenue were rebutted by respondents leading any cogent and credible evidence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 41 - Full Document

K.I. Pavunny vs The Asstt Collector, Cochin on 24 February, 1998

13. ?When the material evidence established fraud against Revenue white collar crimes committed under absolute secrecy shall not be exonerated from penal consequence of law following Apex Court judgment in the case of K. I. Pavunny v. AC, Cochin - 1997 (90) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.). An act of fraud on Revenue is always viewed seriously. Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilized system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human conduct either by letter or words, which includes the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by words or letter.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 33 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Customs, Kandla vs M/S Essar Oil Limited & Ors on 7 October, 2004

It has been held by Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Kandla v. Essar Oil Ltd. - 2004 (172) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.) that by fraud is meant an intention to deceive; whether it is from any expectation of advantage to the party himself or from the ill will towards the other is immaterial. The expression fraud involves two elements, deceit and injury to the deceived. Undue advantage obtained by the deceiver, will almost always call loss or detriment to the deceived. Similarly a fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain by anothers loss. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 54 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Gowrishankar & Anr vs Joshi Amba Shankar Family Trust & Ors on 22 February, 1996

Suppression of a material document would also amount to a fraud on the court (see Gowrishankar v. Joshi Amha Shankar Family Trust, [1996 (3) SCC 310] and S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidus case AIR-1994 SC-853. No judgment of a Court can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything and fraud vitiates all transactions known to the law of however high a degree of solemnity.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 128 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document
1   2 Next