Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Friends Industries

Commissioner of Central Excise vs Friends Industries

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Sep 27, 2005
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/40372

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

Friends Industries

Legal References

Reported In
(2006)(193)ELT469TriDel

Excerpt

1. revenue filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the commissioner (appeals) whereby the confiscation of the goods which were found excess in the factory is set aside.2. the contention of the revenue is that weighment done in the presence of partner of the assessee and who signed the verification chart. in this case on the visit by the revenue officers, the 20.810 mt of angles and channels of different sizes were found to be in excess as mentioned in the statutory record. the adjudicating authority confiscated the excess found in factory. the commissioner (appeals) set aside the order for confiscation on the ground that there was no actual weighment of the goods and difference was only calculated on the assumptions and presumptions basis.3. revenue produced the copy of panchnama, which only shows, on verification, the certain goods were found in excess. the total quantity of goods found in the factory is 535.870 m.t. the revenue has not produced any evidence in this appeal where the actual weighment was conducted. for weighment of 535.870 mt, it requires a number of vehicles; as such quantity cannot be weighed in one go. the verification on estimate basis has no base for confiscation particularly when these are angles and channels of different sizes. in these circumstances, i find no infirmity in the impugned order. the appeal is dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. Revenue filed this appeal against the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the confiscation of the goods which were found excess in the factory is set aside.

2. The contention of the Revenue is that weighment done in the presence of partner of the assessee and who signed the verification chart. In this case on the visit by the Revenue officers, the 20.810 MT of Angles and Channels of different sizes were found to be in excess as mentioned in the statutory record. The adjudicating authority confiscated the excess found in factory. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order for confiscation on the ground that there was no actual weighment of the goods and difference was only calculated on the assumptions and presumptions basis.

3. Revenue produced the copy of Panchnama, which only shows, on verification, the certain goods were found in excess. The total quantity of goods found in the factory is 535.870 M.T. The Revenue has not produced any evidence in this appeal where the actual weighment was conducted. For weighment of 535.870 MT, it requires a number of vehicles; as such quantity cannot be weighed in one go. The verification on estimate basis has no base for confiscation particularly when these are angles and channels of different sizes. In these circumstances, I find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial