#excise duty demand

CESTAT Chandigarh rules that Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be applied retrospectively, setting aside a Rs. 55,01,282 demand for the period prior to September 20, 1991. The ruling reinforces that excise duty demands under Section 11D are prospective only, impacting businesses facing retrospective tax claims.

CESTAT Ahmedabad has ruled that revenue authorities cannot sustain excise duty demands based solely on handwritten notes or unverified challans. The burden lies squarely on the department to produce concrete, corroborated evidence of clandestine removal-rejecting speculative inferences from incomplete records. This sets a vital precedent for manufacturers facing arbitrary tax assessments under the Central Excise Act.

CESTAT Kolkata ruled that when statutory documents are unavailable due to passage of time, actual production records submitted by the assessee hold legal precedence. The Tribunal set aside an excise duty demand of ₹73.1 lakh, reinforcing that tax authorities cannot rely on procedural lapses caused by delay to deny consequential relief to manufacturers.

CESTAT Hyderabad ruled that excise duty valuation under Rule 7 must be based on the actual transaction value, rejecting the Department's demand predicated on the highest price of the week. The Tribunal emphasized the one-to-one correlation between factory clearance and depot sales, invalidating arbitrary valuation methods that disregard contractual agreements.

CESTAT Chennai clarifies that mere related-party status does not invalidate transaction value under Rule 9; the revenue must prove actual influence on price through concrete evidence. This ruling empowers manufacturers dealing with group companies to rely on arm’s-length pricing unless proven otherwise, reducing arbitrary reassessments in excise audits.

The CETAT holds that allegations of clandestine removal under the Central Excise Act cannot be sustained on third-party records alone; corroborative evidence is mandatory.