9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (8) TMI 1262 - AT - Central Excise
Issues Involved:
1. Clandestine removal of goods under the guise of a different product to evade duty payment. Analysis: Issue 1: Clandestine removal of goods under the guise of a different product to evade duty payment The case revolved around the question of whether there was clandestine removal of flush doors under the name of panel doors during the period 1995-96, 1996-97, and 1997-98 to benefit from duty exemption related to panel doors. The appellants, manufacturers of various products including flush doors and panel doors, were accused of suppressing manufacturing activities and not maintaining proper records. Following an investigation and a show-cause notice, the authorities confirmed duty demand, interest, and penalties against the appellants and the director of the company. Both appellate authorities found that the appellants failed to provide evidence supporting their claim that the cleared goods were panel doors as they contended, rather than flush doors as alleged by the department. The government orders for the supply clearly indicated a demand for flush doors, which was not disputed by the appellants. Additionally, the invoices issued to private suppliers did not accurately describe the goods, but the rates matched those of flush doors. The appellants were found to have clandestinely cleared the goods, suppressed information, and failed to cooperate during the investigation, leading to the dismissal of their appeals. The Tribunal emphasized the need for cogent evidence to establish charges of clandestine removal, which was deemed sufficient in this case, justifying the dismissal of the appeals. This judgment highlights the importance of maintaining accurate records, complying with regulatory requirements, and cooperating during investigations to avoid allegations of clandestine activities and duty evasion. The decision underscores the significance of providing substantial evidence to refute charges and the need for a case-by-case analysis based on factual circumstances.
|
