Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2008 (10) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2008 (10) TMI 519 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
Stay petitions arising from an impugned order confirming duty, interest, and penalty against a Gutkha manufacturer for alleged clandestine removal based on discrepancies in Supari consumption and production quantities.

Analysis:

1. The impugned order confirmed duty, interest, and penalty against M/s. Chandan Tobacco Co. for the period November 2002 to December 2005. The demand was based on discrepancies in Supari consumption per Gutkha pouch, with the Revenue alleging overstating quantities to evade duty. The Commissioner noted discrepancies in suppliers' records, raising doubts on the genuineness of Supari supply. However, the analysis report of SIIR Delhi indicated Menthol content but lacked details on other ingredients. The Department's calculations were based on assumptions and presumptions, lacking concrete evidence for the entire period.

2. The appellants argued that the demand was unjustified as it relied on a test report from a specific lot, which should not apply to previous clearances. They contended that minor variations in Supari consumption did not conclusively prove evasion. The observations made by the Commissioner were seen as tacit approval of the appellants' claims regarding Supari consumption variances. The appellants had already deposited a portion of the demanded amount, indicating compliance with immediate clearances.

3. The Tribunal found merit in the appellants' arguments, concluding that they had established a prima facie case in their favor. As a result, the stay petitions were granted unconditionally, allowing relief to the appellants. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of concrete evidence and legal principles in determining duty liabilities, highlighting the need for specific and tangible proof to support allegations of evasion.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision to grant relief to the appellants based on the lack of concrete evidence supporting the duty demand for the specified period.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates