Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.38 seconds)
Cce, Raipur vs M/S. Hi Tech Abrasives Ltd on 7 October, 2016 cites

Cce, Indore (M.P.) vs M/S.Precitex Rubber Components Pvt. ... on 3 September, 2014

14. On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances as outlined above, I find that the statement of Director is the basis for the demand. The statement is inculpatory and is specific. The Director clearly admitted that the documents/private records recovered by the officers contained details of procurement of raw materials as well as clearance of finished goods with and without payment of duty. This fact is further strengthened by the observation that many entries in the private documents are covered by the invoices issued by the assessee on which duty stands paid. The Director has clearly admitted the truth of the charts as well as clandestine clearance of goods covered by the entries in the private notebooks which are not covered by the invoices. Such statement is admissible as evidence as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Systems & Components Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The activities of clandestine nature is required to be proved by sufficient positive evidence. However, the facts presented in each individual case are required to be scrutinized and examined independently. The department in this case has relied upon the confessional statement of the Director which is also supported by the mentioned entries in the private records. There is no averment that the statement has been taken under duress. The assessee also does not appear to have asked for cross-examination during the process of adjudication.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 1 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1