Demand of Excise Duty for Clandestine Removal of Goods without Examination of Witness in terms of 9D of Central Excise Act: CESTAT directs Re-consideration [Read Order]
![Demand of Excise Duty for Clandestine Removal of Goods without Examination of Witness in terms of 9D of Central Excise Act: CESTAT directs Re-consideration [Read Order]](https://www.taxscan.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Demand-of-Excise-Duty-Clandestine-Removal-of-Goods-Excise-Duty-Central-Excise-Act-CESTAT-Directs-Re-consideration-taxscan.jpg "Demand of Excise Duty for Clandestine Removal of Goods without Examination of Witness in terms of 9D of Central Excise Act: CESTAT directs Re-consideration [Read Order]")
The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) directed re-consideration for imposing of demand of excise duty for clandestine removal of goods without examining the witness in terms of 9D of the Central Excise Act,1944. Ashoka Re-Rolling Mills Private Limited, the appellant assessee appealed against the order passed by the Commissioner...
The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) directed re-consideration for imposing of demand of excise duty for clandestine removal of goods without examining the witness in terms of 9D of the Central Excise Act,1944.
Ashoka Re-Rolling Mills Private Limited, the appellant assessee appealed against the order passed by the Commissioner for confirming the demand of duty along with penalty.
Kartick Kurmy, the counsel for the assessee contended that the case has been built out based on hand-written loose sheets of unknown authorship and based on the statement of Manoj Kumar Jain and without testing the same under section 9D of the Central Excise Act.
Further submitted that the said statement has become an irrelevant piece of material and there was no other corroborative evidence based on independent inquiry, therefore, a charge of clandestine removal of goods was not sustainable.
S.Mukhopadhyay, the counsel for the revenue contended that the loose sheets were recovered from the factory premises of the assessee, and the statement of the Director had confirmed the receipt of the loose sheets from their factory premises in that circumstances there is corroborative evidence to establish clandestine removal of goods.
The Bench observed that it was necessary to remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for examination of witnesses in terms of section 9D of the Central Excise Act and thereafter to pass an appropriate order under the law.
The two-member bench comprising Ashok Jindal (Judicial) and K.Anpazhakan (Technical) directed re-consideration for the examination of the witness in terms of section 9D of the Central Excise Act while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
