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

TMI Blog

Home

2011 (4) TMI 1169

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of manufacture of Sequester-50. Since the statements are clearly wrong as far as Sequester-50 is concerned, it would not be proper to confirm the allegation of under-valuation on the basis of these statements. Therefore, the confirmation of demand on the ground of under-valuation cannot be sustained. Confiscation upheld - set aside the impugned order as far as demand for duty, interest thereon and penalty related to that portion imposed on all the appellants. The matter is to be remanded to the original adjudicating authority to decide the quantum of redemption fine and the quantum of penalty on the appellants only as far as the confiscated goods and the gravity of offence in relation to confiscated goods.
S/Shri B.S.V. Murthy, Ashok Ji .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... they were under-invoicing their products. Shri Kersi Nikorawalla in his further statement dated 15-11-1996 admitted that M/s. Frontline Enterprises, through whom the products were sold, was only a front operating unit of M/s. Universal Enterprises and the goods were sold by them at a higher price. Further, he also admitted that Sequester-600 was cleared from the factory in the guise of Sequester-100. On the basis of search and seizure and further investigation, a show-cause notice was issued proposing duty demand of Rs. 21,68,012/- with interest and also proposing imposition of penalty. Further, the seized goods were also proposed to be confiscated. In the impugned order, the Commissioner has confiscated a part of the goods, which were seiz .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... statement is totally wrong. Other than the statements of three persons, there was absolutely no evidence to show that the Seuqester-600 was sold in the guise of Sequester-100 and Sequester-300 was also sold in the guise of Sequester-100 etc. From the invoices, it cannot be made out that it was actually a higher quality product. Further, he also submits that the departmental officers did not recover any product, which has been invoiced as Sequester-100 but actually it was found to be Seuqester-300 or Sequester-600. No verification was conducted in premises of M/s. Frontline Enterprises, who was supposed to be dealer exclusively of the products manufactured by the appellants. Tests conducted on samples drawn also show that products were found .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... not accounted, they are liable to confiscation. 6. As regards under-valuation, we find that the departmental officers drew samples of the stock. The samples were drawn on the date of the search and seizure i.e. 17-10-1996. It is also seen that the samples drawn were of Sequester-50, Sequester-100 and Sequester-300. The test report also would show that Sequester-300 had organic chemical namely Sequacel 38.3%, Sequester-600 had organic chemical 68.3%, Sequester- 50 had organic chemical 11.4% and Sequester-100 had organic chemical 21.3%. This would show that qualities of Sequester itself are proportionate to the ratio of organic chemical containing, is almost in the same ratio of the numerical figure given subsequent to Sequester in res .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... evidence is available in the form of Panchanama and the admission of partners. As regards test memo, samples were drawn and there is no dispute and results of test memo have also not been disputed. It is settled law that allegations of under-valuation or clandestine removal cannot be sustained only on the basis of statements but some corroboration is required. As regards the statements, as observed by us, no evidence has been gathered by the department of even one instance where the products cleared by the appellants were found to be of different grade than declared in the invoices. In the absence of any documentary evidence, the contradictory statements given by the three partners cannot be relied upon for the purpose of under-valuation an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates