CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, 1944

Section 11A(1)

Demand of excise duty - Clandestine removal - Resins - Mis-declaration of goods

Assessee was a manufacturer of Alkyd, Phenolic and Malleic Resins falling under Chapter heading 3907.50/3909.51 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Officers of DRI conducted searches and seizures, investigated and came to the conclusion that assessee was clearing resins in excess quantity which were being booked for transportation under fictitious bills issued in the name of three companies. It was further found that the goods in such invoices were declared as Orthoxylene, MTO, Xylene, etc. Further, investigation by the officers showed that the goods were indeed the resins manufactured by assessee and were misdeclared as orthoxylene. Chemical analysis of the samples confirmed that the goods were indeed resins. Held: There was lack of sufficient evidence, as evidence being the statement of some of the persons given in the course of investigation was not reliable, as such persons have not stood by their earlier statement at the time of cross-examination or not appeared for cross-examination. In view of the documentary evidence brought on record in the course of investigation and duly supported by oral evidence of several persons and also supported by some of the key persons involved in the transaction, including in the course of cross-examination, allegation of Revenue was established and accordingly, demand was rightly raised by Revenue.

Followed:M/s. Jindal Drugs (P) Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. 2016 (340) ELT 67 (P & H) : 2016 TaxPub(EX) 1668 (P&H), Arya Abhushan Bhandar v. Union of India 2002(143) ELT 25 (SC) : 2002 TaxPub(EX) 1101 (SC) and Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise 2000 (122) ELT 641 (SC) : 2000 TaxPub(EX) 2264 (SC).

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.

A.Y. :

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT