9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (8) TMI 132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Truck No.HR -01-B-2474 loaded with iron and steel ingots near Railway Station at Mandi Gobindgarh. On demand, the driver of the truck produced Bill No.1045 dated 10-12-1992 of M/s. Archana Steel Works, Chandigarh. On an enquiry, the truck driver stated that he had loaded the ingots from the factory premises of M/s. Bhushan Industries, Chandigarh and left Chandigarh in the morning for Mandi Gobindgarh. He further submitted that he did not have any other document except the Bill. The Central Excise Officers alleged that the iron ingots weighing 14.880 MT were clandestinely removed by M/s. Bhushan Alloys and Steels. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to M/s. Bhushan Alloys and Steels as well as to M/s. Archana Steels, Chandigarh aski ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt in appeal before the Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) in her order held that the counsel for the respondents argued that the statement of Shri R.C. Jain has been correctly relied upon by the adjudicating authority. The Collector (Appeals) held- I cannot agree. The statement of the truck driver which is corroborated by the Octroi records are to be relied on; if the same are not acceptable they are to be effectively rebutted with evidence. The adjudicating authority has definitely erred and therefore come to a wrong conclusion. I accept the appeal and set aside the impugned orders. The case needs to be readjudicated afresh . 3. Ms. Archana Wadhwa, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the Collector ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, the learned counsel submitted that the appellants have produced ample evidence in regard to the payment of duty and clearance of goods in support of their contention. She submitted that the impugned order was bad in law and prayed that it may be set aside. 5. Shri Jogindra Singh, the learned JCDR submitted that the statement of the driver recorded on 11-12-1992 and the octroi records on 11-12-1992 clearly showed that the goods were moving on 11-12-1992 and therefore it was right for the Department to presume that the goods were cleared from the factory of the appellants on 11-12-1992 and that they were different goods from those cleared under GPI No. 550 dated 10-12-1992. He therefore, submitted that it was a case of clandestine remova ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
