"BURDEN OF PROOF" - Part 2

"BURDEN OF PROOF" - Part 2

3.2 Chemphar Drugs & Liniments - Supreme Court

(1989) 40 ELT 276

A six-month limitation would apply if the department had full knowledge or the manufacturer had reasonable belief that he was not required to give particular information.

3.3 Padmini Products - Supreme Court

(1989) 43 ELT 195

A 5-year period is inapplicable for a manufacturer's failure to get a license or pay duty when there's doubt about goods being dutiable due to Trade notices.

4. Burden of Proof in case of Fake Invoices

4.1 Anurag Alloys & Die Cast Pvt. Ltd. - Punjab & Haryana High Court

(2023) 383 ELT 405

The appellant having duly reflected clearance of goods in RG-1 register,

holding him guilty on presumptions issuing fake invoices without a supply of goods is not sustainable; an allegation of fraud must be proved by the person levelling such allegation.

4.2 SMI Electrowire Pvt. Ltd. - Punjab & Haryana High Court

(2015) 322 ELT 447

Cenvat Credit - Fake invoices issued by the dealer without the supply of goods - Burden of proof - Allegations based solely on the dealer’s generic statement of non-supply of goods -Appellant not specifically implicated in the statement, rather exonerated with a positive assertion of goods having been supplied to him - No consideration given to documents presented by the appellant in his defense - Appellant maintained all prescribed records, filed returns, and made payments by cheque - Holding him guilty based on presumptions is unsustainable - Allegation of fraud must be proven by the person making the allegation.

Hope this series will help you.

Thanks

Raja Abhishek

9810638155