|
S No
|
Citation
|
Name of the Party
|
Subject Heading
|
| 1 |
2012 (2) ECS ( 118) (Tri-Ahd)(140 KB) |
M/s Windson Chem Industries
|
If the proprietor of the appellant-assessee who
is the main beneficiary of any illegal/legal activities of the
firm, admits, in his statement that there was clandestine
removal of the finished goods, further corroboration, if
any, may not be necessary.
|
| 2 |
2013 (1) ECS ( 42) (Tri-Del)(158 KB) |
Mangal Sponge &
Steel Pvt. Ltd. |
Inputs received in factory but not accounted in
statutory records is evidence of clandestine manufacture |
| 3 |
2013 (1) ECS (73) (Tri-Mum)(157 KB) |
M/s Shiva Steels Rolling Mills |
Demand is confirmed on the ground of electricity consumption.Experiment conducted
by the Revenue in presence of appellant was found that from
consumption of 1 KWH of electric power 830 kgs. of finished
goods are manufactured. Tribunal in the case of Orange City
Alloys Pvt. Ltd. has directed the assessee to
deposit 50% of the duty and penalty. Hon’ble Bombay High
Court vide order dated 12.10.2011 modified and directed
the assessee to deposit 25% of the duty
for hearing of the appeal. SLP No. 4520/2012 filed by M/s
Orange City Alloys Ltd. against the decision of Hon’ble
Bombay High 07.05.2012 is dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme
Court. In case of M/S Jai Bharat Steel Rolling Mills demand was
confirmed on the same ground and Tribunal vide Stay Order dated
14.02.12, relying on Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of
Orange City Alloys, directed the assesse to deposit 25% of the
duty
|
| 4 |
2013 (2) ECS ( 75)(Tri-Del) |
M/s Gyscoal Alloys Ltd
|
Appellants are expected to be aware that credit is
required to be reversed when inputs are cleared as such. No
incidence for the earlier period to the effect that credit
taken in such a situation was ever reversed by them
voluntarily, without detecting by the department. The action
and argument of reversal of cenvat credit
by the appellants has to be considered as afterthought.
Department has reasonably discharged the burden that inputs
were not received by the appellants. No manufacturer can be
expected to keep documentary evidences of its clandestine
activities
|
| 5 |
2013 (2) ECS (37 ) (Tri-Ahd)(172 KB) |
M/s Agarwal Metals & Alloys
|
When one of the vehicles is not even registered at the
time and when other vehicles were found to be incapable of
transportation or owners admitting that they have not
transported which is further supported by the fact that the
vehicles did not pass through the Sales Tax Check Posts and no
stamps were found on documents, the case is made on the basis
of documents and records and, therefore, it cannot be said that
just because cross examination was not allowed, appellants were
handicapped |
| 6 |
2013 (2) ECS (69 ) (Tri-Ahd)(190 KB) |
M/s Fortex Remedies Pvt. Ltd
|
Under amended Rule 8 (3 A) it was responsibility of the
appellant to pay duty consignment wise from account current. In
the event of any failure to follow this procedure, the goods
cleared will be deemed to have been cleared without payment of
duty and the consequence and penalties as provided in the
Central Excise Rules shall follow |
| 7 |
2013 (2) ECS (97 ) (Tri-Ahd)(189 KB) |
M/s Royal Antibiotics & Investment Pvt. Ltd |
Under amended Rule 8 (3 A) it was responsibility of the
appellant to pay duty consignment wise from account current. In
the event of any failure to follow this procedure, the goods
cleared will be deemed to have been cleared without payment of
duty and the consequence and penalties as provided in the
Central Excise Rules shall follow |
| 8 |
2013 (4) ECS (95 ) (Tri-Ahd)(180 KB) |
M/s. Pigeon Textiles |
Issue
of SCN- relevant date. |
| 9 |
2013 (4) ECS (53 ) (Tri-Ahd)(184 KB) |
M/s. Chandan Steels Ltd.
|
The burden of explaining the shortage in raw
materials on the appellant. |
| 10 |
2013 (4) ECS (23 ) (Tri-Mum)(206 KB) |
Ahmednagar Rolling Mills
Pvt. Ltd. |
In the absence of any evidence to prove that
private records are wrong and did not belong to the appellants,
the charge of suppression of production and clandestine removal
can be established on these evidences. |
| 11 |
2013 (4) ECS (57 ) (Tri-Del)(179 KB) |
M/s Jyoti Divya Fabrication
Ltd.
|
Dispute arising out of method of stock taking
basis of number of pipes and tubes found short multifplied by
the sectional weight mentioned in the catalogue of the applellant themselves
|
| 12 |
2013 (4) ECS (67 ) (Tri-Del)(389 KB) |
M/s M.R.Tobacco Pvt. Ltd. and
others.
|
For Manufacture of Gutkha plastic laminate
is also a principal rave material and on the basis of the
evidence of huge quantity of unaccounted receipt of such
plastic laminate, burden of proof shifted to the manufacturer.
|
| 13 |
2012 (2) ECS (89 ) (Tri-Mum)(128 KB) |
M/s Ramanand Steel Ltd.
|
it is a case of clandestine removal of the goods and
matter cannot be examined in detail while dealing with
the stay application |
| 14 |
2014 (1) ECS (142) (Tri-Del)(188 KB) |
M/s. Pithampur Alloys Casting
Ltd. [2014 |
Evasion of duty by clandestine removal without
accounting for manufacture was proved from material and
incriminating evidence recovered during investigation.
|
| 15 |
2014 (1) ECS (152) (Tri-Del)(235 KB) |
M/s Ganpati Rolling
P. Ltd. |
When there is credible evidence to indicate wrongful
conduct of the respondents such as not accounting of goods and
unlawful possession thereof, it has to be concluded that there
was an intention to evade..
|
| 16 |
2014 (1) ECS (171) (Tri-Kol)(208 KB) |
M/s. Union Enterprises |
Evidences indicate that the production recorded in the
RG-1 register by the assessee was not
factually correct.
|
| 17 |
2014 (2) ECS (230) (Tri- Ahm.)(683 KB) |
M/s Tec Papers Pvt Ltd
|
Clandestine removal charges have to be proved by
evidences. However, these evidence depend upon facts and
circumstances of each case and which can be a simple recovery
of note book with corroboration by managers, staff etc. |
| 18 |
2014 (3) ECS (123 ) (Tri–Chen)(316 KB) |
M/s. Sujana Steels Ltd.
|
Supply of imported scrap without any documents by the
appellant to the manufacturer for the purpose of manufacturing
and clearance of Rerolled products clandestinely. |
| 19 |
2014 (4) ECS (48) (Tri-Ahd)(108 KB) |
M/s. Kashi Silk Mills
|
Grey fabrics and finished fabrics recorded in the said
private lot register were not accounted for in the statutory
records. The grey fabrics were received from different parties
for job work illicitly and were entered into this private lot
register only and were not entered into statutory records. That
after processing, the fabrics were returned to the concerned
parties without payment of duty and without making any entry in
the Central Excise records. Demand upheld. |
| 20 |
2014 (4) ECS (53) (Tri-Ahm)(138 KB) |
M/s. Sangam Prints Pvt. Ltd
|
Appellant has clandestinely processed the grey fabrics
received by them from merchant manufacturers underkacha delivery challans and
clandestinely removed the processed fabrics without payment of
duty. Demand upheld
|
| 21 |
2014 (4) ECS (62) (Tri-Del)(337 KB) |
M/s. Thermotech |
In a clandestine activity, it is not possible to
unearth every piece of evidence and such standard of proof is
not required for proving evasion of tax. The standard of
evidence in a civil dispute is preponderance of probability,
not the proof beyond any reasonable doubt. |
| 22 |
2014 (4) ECS (98) (Tri-Ahd)(113 KB) |
M/s. Tulip Lamcraft Pvt Ltd
|
The director and despatch supervisor
had admitted that there were clandestine removals as recorded
in the spiral note books. Except for asserting that there was
no clandestine manufacturing activity, the appellant has not
adduced any creditable evidence.
|
| 23 |
2014 (4) ECS (103) (Tri-Ahd)(103 KB) |
M/s. Western India Ceramics Pvt. Ltd |
It is a case of admitted clandestine manufacture, non-accountal of
stock properly and clearance of part of the goods through
fictitious firm M/s Labh Traders created
by the appellant. The clandestine removal was corroborated by
statements of the employees of the main appellant and other
persons.
|
| 24 |
2014 (4) ECS (106) (Tri-Ahd)(105 KB) |
M/s. Paras Steel Industries
|
Statements by the assessee clearly
give details of the clandestine activities of the respondents
and were not retracted during investigation/adjudication. When
respondents did not give details of the buyers of the goods
clandestinely removed Revenue cannot be faulted with for not
investigating the area of extra raw materials purchased or
extending investigation into the buyers of the goods
clandestinely removed etc.
|
| 25 |
2014 (4) ECS (110) (Tri-Ahd)(162 KB) |
M/s. Deep Twisters Pvt. Ltd. |
Director as a representative of a unit has to be aware
of Central Excise law and procedures and he cannot claim that
ignorance regarding the fact that goods purchase
were liable to confiscation. Penalty upheld
|
