9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Confirmation of demand of duty for clandestine removal of biscuits. 2. Confiscation of biscuits without proper accountal. 3. Correct assessable value of biscuits declared in price lists. Analysis: Issue 1: Confirmation of demand of duty for clandestine removal of biscuits The case involved allegations of clandestine removal of biscuits from the factory. The Commissioner relied on statements from customers, corroborated by documents recovered during the visit to the factory. The partners of the appellants admitted to selling biscuits without paying duty. The Commissioner found evidence of excess delivery of biscuits to customers compared to the records. The appellants argued that mere statements without concrete evidence should not be the basis for confirming the duty demand. However, the Tribunal found the evidence presented by the Revenue sufficient to establish clandestine removal, emphasizing that the Department is not required to prove with mathematical precision. Issue 2: Confiscation of biscuits without proper accountal The appellants contested the confiscation of seized goods, claiming that the goods were still in the factory and entries were made at the end of the day. They argued that non-entry in the register should not lead to confiscation. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that in the context of clandestine activities, the failure to make entries cannot be viewed as a mere oversight, justifying the confiscation of the goods. Issue 3: Correct assessable value of biscuits declared in price lists The Commissioner found discrepancies in the price declared by the appellants in 1984 and the actual selling prices. The appellants maintained the same prices despite raw material cost increases. The Tribunal noted that the undervaluation was established by the findings of clandestine removal. The argument regarding the relationship between M/s. Roy Brothers and M/s. Royco Biscuits Co. was dismissed, emphasizing that in cases of fraud, technical legalities take a back seat. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the appeals. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, confirming the duty demand for clandestine removal, justifying the confiscation of goods, and establishing undervaluation based on the evidence presented. The legal and technical arguments raised by the appellants were dismissed in light of the established fraudulent activities.
|
