Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Laws/2012-13/1530

Statement of Authorised Representative cannot prove clandestine removal when there is no variance in raw material stock.

Case:-RAJ RATAN INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KANPURE

Citation:- 2013(289) E.T.L. 483(Tri.- Del.)

Brief Facts:-As per facts on record M/s. Raj Ratan Industries Ltd. is engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots. Their factory was visited by the Central Excise officers on 26-8-2008, who conducted various checks and verification. As a result shortage of M.S. Ingots to the extent of 40.865 M.T., involving duty of Rs. 1,50,265/- was detected. However no discrepancy was found in the stock of raw-materials.
Shri Vijay Kumar Agarwal authorized signatory of the said appellant in his on the spot statement admitted shortages and agreed to pay duty which was also deposited by him, that the short found final product might have been disposed by their factory employees without issuing invoices and without pay­ment of duty.
On the above basis, proceeding were initiated against the appellant by way of show cause notice dated 1-6-2009. The said show cause notice culmi­nated into an order passed by the original adjudicating authority confirming the demand and interest and imposition of identical amount of penalty under Sec­tion 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Further, penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed upon Shri Vijay Kumar Agarwal in terms of Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules. Appeal against the above order did not succeed before Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, the present appeal.

Reasoning of Judgment:-We have considered the submission from both parties and perused the record and on going through the impugned order it is found that the duty demand stands confirmed in respect of shortages detected at the time of visit of the officers read with the statement of Shri Vijay Kumar Agarwal. The appellants have strongly contended, the manner of weightment of the final product. It is seen that the Revenue has not produced any inventory on record to show that the weight­ment was actually done and the shortages were not on the basis of average weight system but real and based upon actual weightments. Similarly reliance of the Revenue on the statement of the authorized representative cannot ipso-facto lead to the inevitable conclusion of clandestine removal of final product espe­cially when there is no variation in the stock of the raw-material. There is no other evidence on record to reflect upon the above fact. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Dhingra Metal Works, 2010- TIOL-693-HC-DEL-IT has held that though an admission is extremely important piece of evidence, it cannot be said to be conclusive.
 It is well settled law that allegations of clandestine removal are re­quired to be established by the Revenue by production of the concrete and tangi­ble evidence. In the present case apart from the statement of the authorized rep­resentative, there is no evidence to reflect upon the said activities. Reference at this point can be made to the Tribunal decision in the case of Vikram Cement (Final order no.)A/1419-1421/ 2012-S.M [BR} dated 4-10-2012. and Punjab & Haryana High Court judgment in the case of CCE v. Lexmi Engineering Works, 2010 (254) E.L.T. 205 (P&H). As the Revenue has failed to bring on record any evidence showing illegal manufacture and removal of their final product, Tribunal find no justification in upholding the confirmation of demand of duty or imposition if penalty on both the appellants.
Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and both the appeals are allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.
 
Decision:-The appeal is allowed.

Comment:-The substance of this case is that allegation of illicit manufacture and clandestine removal are to be backed by corroborative evidences and the statement of authorised representative cannot be the sole basis of confirming such demand along with interest and penalty specially when there is no variance in raw material stock.
 

Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com