9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 1650 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine removal - semi-finished gelatine - natural justice - Held that - no iota of evidence brought by Revenue to prove clandestine removal of semi-finished gelatine by the assessee from its factory - since semi-finished gelatine are not saleable in the market the charges against the assessee cannot be sustained that the same were removed from the factory in clandestine manner without payment of central excise duty - also the submissions of the assessee that there is no shortage of semi-finished gelatine have not been dealt with by the authorities below - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues: Duty demand on semi-finished gelatine, penalty reduction, confirmation of duty demand
In this case, the appellant challenged an order confirming duty demand on 10,117 Kgs. of semi-finished gelatine. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the duty demand but reduced the penalty imposed. Both the Revenue and the appellant filed appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal had previously disposed of the Revenue's appeal, confirming the duty demand on 4000 Kgs. of gelatine and the penalty. The appellant's appeal focused on the duty demand on the remaining 10,117 Kgs. The appellant argued that the semi-finished gelatine in question, which was in-processed and not in a finished condition, could not be sold in the market, thus the duty demand was unjustified. Upon review, the Tribunal found no evidence presented by the Revenue to support the claim of clandestine removal of the semi-finished gelatine by the appellant. Additionally, since the semi-finished gelatine was not marketable, the charges of removal without payment of central excise duty were deemed unsustainable. The Tribunal noted that the authorities had not addressed the appellant's assertion of no shortage of semi-finished gelatine. Consequently, the duty demand on the semi-finished gelatine was deemed unsustainable, and the impugned order against the appellant was set aside, allowing the appeal.
|
