Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.21 seconds)
Jai Hardware Pvt Ltd vs Noida on 7 August, 2018 cites

M/S Kuber Tobacco Products Ltd vs C.C.E. Delhi on 8 April, 2011

The Panchnama simply states that documents pertaining to sale and purchase, manufacture and clearance of goods were found in the room. Moreover, the panchnama is totally silent on the aspect whether the documents recovered were sealed or not, 9 APPEAL Nos.E/70265, 70279-70285, 70305 & 70596-70649/2016-EX[DB] so as to avoid any manipulation and, in case they were sealed, whether any panchnama proceedings were recorded while de-sealing the said records. Even though the panchanama stated to have recovered the CPU of the computer found in the premises for further investigation and the said CPU was sealed with paper seal containing signatures of panchas, department officers and Shri Shukla however, there is nothing in the SCN as to the manner in which the said seal was broken i.e. whether any panchnama proceedings were carried or not. The appellant, in support, relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Kuber Tobacco Products Ltd. v CCE, Delhi - (2013) 290 ELT 545 (T).
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 9 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

M/S Andaman Timber Industries vs Commr.Of Central Excise,Kolkata-Ii on 2 September, 2015

11. On the issue of cross-examination, we find that the assessee cannot as a matter of right ask for cross examination and it is only in case the department wants to rely upon the statements that the opportunity to cross- examine needs to be afforded in compliance of the principles of natural justice as held by the Apex Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries v CCE, Kolkata - 2015 (324) ELT 641 (SC) as well as the Allahabad High Court in the case of CCE v Kurele Pan Products Pvt. Ltd. - 2014 (307) ELT 42 (All). As no opportunity of cross-examine has been given to the appellant, we hold that the Commissioner has committed error in law in relying upon the statements.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 602 - Full Document

Cce & St, Lucknow vs M/S K.P. Pan Products Pvt. Ltd on 29 July, 2015

11. On the issue of cross-examination, we find that the assessee cannot as a matter of right ask for cross examination and it is only in case the department wants to rely upon the statements that the opportunity to cross- examine needs to be afforded in compliance of the principles of natural justice as held by the Apex Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries v CCE, Kolkata - 2015 (324) ELT 641 (SC) as well as the Allahabad High Court in the case of CCE v Kurele Pan Products Pvt. Ltd. - 2014 (307) ELT 42 (All). As no opportunity of cross-examine has been given to the appellant, we hold that the Commissioner has committed error in law in relying upon the statements.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 0 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd., Etc. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 17 October, 1969

13. We find that the charge of clandestine clearance is a serious charge and the department is required to prove the allegations of clandestine clearance by producing sufficient positive and cogent evidence. In the present case, the case of the department is based upon certain private records which 17 APPEAL Nos.E/70265, 70279-70285, 70305 & 70596-70649/2016-EX[DB] are seriously disputed by the appellant and, corroborating the same by statements for which the appellant had not been afforded opportunity to rebut. We find that even though the private record relied upon was common but, for the purpose of quantifying the demand on individual appellant, reliance was placed on statement of Shri K.D. Shukla, wherein he had stated to have identified the variety of finished goods manufactured by each company/firm, in the private records recovered during the panchanama dated 03/04.07.13 of Harola Premises. However, the counsel for the appellant had pointed from the record that that the appellant has been manufacturing and clearing the variety of Hinges which, though not indicated in the statement of Shri Shukla, but the statutory invoices recovered by the department from the factory premises of the appellant, clearly shows the manufacture and clearances of such variety. This itself shows that quantification of demand cannot be based relying upon statements and the same is without any basis. There is clear assumption and presumption by the department regarding alleged clandestine activities. In the absence of any positive evidence brought on record by the department except for private record the authenticity of which have been doubted and the statements which we have already held to be not voluntary, the allegations of clandestine clearance cannot be upheld in the present case. On this issue we are guided by the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of 18 APPEAL Nos.E/70265, 70279-70285, 70305 & 70596-70649/2016-EX[DB] Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd. v Union of India, 1978 (2) E.L.T. J172 (S.C.) which has been consistently followed by the Tribunal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 174 - K S Hegde - Full Document

Spentex Industries Ltd. vs Cce Pune Iii on 12 June, 2018

17. On the issue of clubbing of clearances, it has been held by the Commissioner that all the companies including the appellant were only a façade created by Shri B.M. Garg, just to avail unauthorized SSI benefit. Reliance is also placed on the SCN dated 20.02.08 r.w. addendum dated 16.09.11 which was affirmed vide OiO No. 73-81/Commissioner/Noida/2012- 13 dated 31.03.13. However, the facts of the case does not warrant clubbing of clearances of all the units as we find that the Commissioner has confirmed the demand jointly as well 20 APPEAL Nos.E/70265, 70279-70285, 70305 & 70596-70649/2016-EX[DB] as severally on each of the companies/firms thus accepting their separate and independent identity, as held by this Tribunal in the case of Punjab General Manufacturing Works Vs. CCE, Lucknow, 2017-TIOL-1837-CESTAT-ALL, and in the case of Bentex Industries v CCE, New Delhi - 2003 (151) ELT 695 (T) affirmed by the Apex Court reported in 2004 (173) ELT A79 (SC). Further, the issue is also covered by the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of CCE, Noida-I versus M/s Garg Industries - C. Ex. Appeal No. 281 of 2015 decided vide order dated 06.11.15 pertaining to parties before us wherein it has been held, under identical facts, that merely because Shri B.M.Garg is the person behind all the companies/firms, including the appellant, cannot be a ground to club the clearances of all the companies/firms in question and further held that merely because the proprietor of Garg Industries has interest in the other six units (Pvt. Ltd. Companies) does not entitle the department to club all the shares of the assessee in other units. Further, the earlier OiO dated 31.03.13 has already been set aside by this Tribunal vide Final Order dated 71748- 71756/2017-Ex (DB) dated 8.6.2017, reported as 2018-TIOL- 651-CESTAT-ALL.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 15 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Punjab General Manufacturing Works And ... vs Cce on 11 August, 2005

17. On the issue of clubbing of clearances, it has been held by the Commissioner that all the companies including the appellant were only a façade created by Shri B.M. Garg, just to avail unauthorized SSI benefit. Reliance is also placed on the SCN dated 20.02.08 r.w. addendum dated 16.09.11 which was affirmed vide OiO No. 73-81/Commissioner/Noida/2012- 13 dated 31.03.13. However, the facts of the case does not warrant clubbing of clearances of all the units as we find that the Commissioner has confirmed the demand jointly as well 20 APPEAL Nos.E/70265, 70279-70285, 70305 & 70596-70649/2016-EX[DB] as severally on each of the companies/firms thus accepting their separate and independent identity, as held by this Tribunal in the case of Punjab General Manufacturing Works Vs. CCE, Lucknow, 2017-TIOL-1837-CESTAT-ALL, and in the case of Bentex Industries v CCE, New Delhi - 2003 (151) ELT 695 (T) affirmed by the Apex Court reported in 2004 (173) ELT A79 (SC). Further, the issue is also covered by the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of CCE, Noida-I versus M/s Garg Industries - C. Ex. Appeal No. 281 of 2015 decided vide order dated 06.11.15 pertaining to parties before us wherein it has been held, under identical facts, that merely because Shri B.M.Garg is the person behind all the companies/firms, including the appellant, cannot be a ground to club the clearances of all the companies/firms in question and further held that merely because the proprietor of Garg Industries has interest in the other six units (Pvt. Ltd. Companies) does not entitle the department to club all the shares of the assessee in other units. Further, the earlier OiO dated 31.03.13 has already been set aside by this Tribunal vide Final Order dated 71748- 71756/2017-Ex (DB) dated 8.6.2017, reported as 2018-TIOL- 651-CESTAT-ALL.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 0 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1