-
by sayum
06 October 2026 6:23 AM
Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Kuber Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., emphatically dismissed the appeal by the Commissioner of Central Excise, underscoring the principle that grave suspicion does not suffice as evidence. The court stressed the importance of tangible proof over assumptions in cases alleging clandestine removal of goods and evasion of excise duty.
Legal Point of the Judgment: At the heart of this judgment lies the question of the sufficiency and credibility of evidence in substantiating charges of tax evasion and clandestine activities.
Facts and Issues: Stemming from a series of raids in 1998 and subsequent show-cause notices, Kuber Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. was accused of evading excise duty through clandestine removal of Gutkha and Khaini. The evidence presented largely comprised retracted statements and documents like Hisaba books and loose sheets.
Court’s Assessment: The court thoroughly examined each piece of evidence. The retracted statements of Mool Chand Malu and Vikas Malu, key figures in KTPL, were not deemed credible due to the lack of independent corroboration. Additionally, the physical verification at KTPL's premises did not reveal excess stock or unaccounted purchases of raw materials, weakening the case of clandestine manufacture and clearance. The court highlighted the importance of tangible evidence in such allegations, noting that assumptions and presumptions are not sufficient for conviction. The evidence, mainly consisting of seized documents, was found to be procedurally flawed and failed to establish a direct connection to KTPL.
Decision: Upholding the CESTAT's majority decision, the High Court dismissed the appeal due to the absence of cogent and tangible evidence against KTPL. The ruling highlighted the judicial insistence on solid and corroborative evidence in cases of tax evasion.
Date of Decision: March 11, 2024.
Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Kuber Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
