Mere Statements of Director which is Inculpatory in Nature can’t be Ground for Upholding Activities of Clandestine Removal: CESTAT [Read Order]
While hearing the case of M/s S.R. Ingots Pvt. Ltd, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that mere statements of the director which is inculpatory in nature cannot be
Third-Party documents alone not sufficient to prove charge of Clandestine Removal: CESTAT [Read Order]
The Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal(CESTAT), Delhi bench has recently quashed an order confirming the charge of clandestine removal for lack of clinching evidence of clandestine manufacture and removal of goods. The Appellant
Allegation of Clandestine Removal can’t be upheld only on the basis of Mere Entries made in certain Private Record recovered from Security: CESTAT [Read Order]
In the case of M/s, Mohit Engineering versus CCE, the Delhi bench of Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT )  ruled that allegation of clandestine removal cannot be upheld only on the
Charges of Clandestine Removal cannot be Confirmed without Corroborative Evidence, No Addition under VAT: ITAT [Read Order]
The Pune bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has held that addition under VAT is not sustainable when the charges of clandestine removal cannot be confirmed without corroborative evidence. The Revenue challenged the
Third Party Records cannot form the Basis of Clandestine Removal, unless Corroborated by Independent Evidence: CESTAT [Read Order]
The Mumbai bench of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has held that third party records cannot form the basis of clandestine removal, unless corroborated by independent evidence. The appellant M/S Orange City Alloys
Shortages noticed during Stock Verification can’t be basis for Allegation of Clandestine Removal: CESTAT [Read Order]
Delhi CESTAT while hearing the appeal of M/s G.P. Ispat Pvt. Limited against the CCE&ST, tribunal quashed the demand since the allegation of clandestine removal has been made only on the basis of alleged shortages
Burden of Proof for alleged Clandestine Removal of Goods is upon the Department: CESTAT [Read Order]
The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi Bench held that the burden of proof for alleged clandestine removal of goods is upon the department. The present order disposes of four appeals arising
Charge of Clandestine Removal to be framed only on the basis of Substantial Evidence: CESTAT [Read Order]
The Allahabad bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), held that the charge of Clandestine removal is to be framed only on the basis of substantial evidence in favour of the
Mere Factum of two Set of Invoices not Sufficient to Prove Clandestine Removal charge: CESTAT quashes Excise Duty Demand [Read Order]
The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) quashed excise duty demand thereby observing that mere factum of two set of invoices not sufficient to prove clandestine removal.
Allahabad HC refuses to grant Bail to person alleged of Clandestine Removal of Finished Goods without issuance of any Invoice, without Payment of any applicable duties [Read Order]
The Allahabad High Court refused to grant bail to a person alleged of clandestine removal of finished goods without issuance of any invoice, without payment of any applicable duties. The applicant, Chhaya Devi is the
CESTAT sets aside Clandestine removal of Zafrani Zarda and Gutkha on Lack of Evidence [Read Order]
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad set aside clandestine removal of Zafrani Zarda and Gutkha on lack of evidence. An intelligence was gathered by the DGCEI, Ahmedabad that M/s Patidar Products
Demand of Duty on Clandestine Removal not sustainable in the absence of Corroborative Evidence: CESTAT [Read Order]
While considering a bunch of appeals, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi Bench held that the demand of duty on clandestine removal was not sustainable in the absence of corroborative evidence.
Penalty under Central Excise Act is not sustainable by Third Party Evidence, can’t claim Duty on Clandestine Removal: CESTAT [Read Order]
The Delhi Principal Bench of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the demand of duty and penalty under the Central Excise Act is not sustainable by the third–party evidence. The
Clandestine Removal cannot be established on the basis of Third Party’s Records: CESTAT [Read Order]
The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that clandestine removal cannot be established on the basis of a third party’s records. The appellants are engaged in
Cogent Evidence is needed to establish a Charge against Clandestine Removal, No Penalty sustained under Central Excise Act: CESTAT [Read Order]
The Delhi bench of Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that cogent evidence is needed to establish a charge against clandestine removal and no penalty sustained under section 11 AC of