Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Raj Kumar Gupta Vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (CESTAT Kolkata)
Appeal Number : Excise Appeal No. 75370 of 2021
Date of Judgement/Order : 28/07/2023
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Raj Kumar Gupta Vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise (CESTAT Kolkata)

CESTAT Kolkata held that charge of clandestine removal of goods without sufficient, cogent and tangible evidence is unsustainable. In the present case, the Revenue has not brought in any evidence to corroborate the allegation that the Appellant were the actual manufacturers of the cigarettes. Accordingly, demand unsustainable.

Facts- The Appellant states that ATPL is registered under the Central Excise having its place of business at Sahadra and is engaged in the business of manufacturing cigarettes of different brands classifiable under Central Excise Tariff Heading No. 24022010 and 24022040 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The said factory was under the Physical Supervision and control of the Central Excise Officers.

During the course of search, a statement of Shri Santosh Kr Jodhwani, was recorded u/s 14 of the said Act wherein he stated that they have purchased the cigarettes from ATPL without any bills. He further stated that he used to contact Shri Mahesh for purchase of cigarettes and the orders were placed on phone and that the cigarettes were received in his godown directly from ATPL and that the payments were made in cash to different traders upon the instructions of Shri Mahesh. Shri Santosh Kr Jodhwani, also stated that the Appellant is owner of ATPL.

In consequence to the said investigation, a show cause notice was issued to them by the Addl. Director General with the allegations that the Appellant is the owner of ATPL and the unregistered factory premise of ATPL and that the Appellant has engaged in clandestine removal of filter and non-filter cigarettes under different brand names. The said Notice was adjudicated by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority vide the impugned Order-in-Original wherein the entire demand as proposed in the Notice was confirmed along with interest and imposition of equivalent penalty. The present proceedings are against the demands confirmed against the Appellant in this impugned order.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031