9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (11) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellants, the Ld. Advocate submits that officers of Central Excise initiated certain enquiries against the appellant on the basis of an assessment order passed by the Asstt. Collector of Income Tax, Ludhiana, in 1987. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellants requiring them to explain why duty amounting to Rs. 14,71,097/- be not recovered from the appellant under Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules read with Section 11A of the Act. Penal action was also proposed. The basis of Show Cause Notice was that the appellants had pledged more stock of oil and vanaspati with the bank than what was shown in their raw-material register and RG-1 and that quantity shown as pledged with the Bank was cleared by the appellants and this quantity wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The stocks were never in excess of the recorded balance. He submits that it was only to secure more finances that inflated stocks were shown as pledged with the bank. Statement of Sh. Bhatia, which merely describes procedure, cannot be relied upon against them, since what is prescribed in the procedure may not always be followed and in fact, they had desired cross examination of Mr. Bhatia, which was refused. There is no evidence whatever to establish clandestine removal of the goods and merely the fact that excess stocks were shown pledged with the bank for the purpose of securing more funds cannot be made a ground for sustaining the charge of clandestine removal of the goods. In support of his contention he cited the cases 1980 (6) E.L.T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ium Silicate as mentioned in their affidavits filed before the Department of Industries. At best it may be an inference but not substantial proof. The Tribunal in this case relied among others on the case of J.A. Naidu v. State of Maharashtra 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1611 and that of Madras High Court in case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Indian Crafts & Industries - 1970 (25) STC 466 where the Hon'ble Court held that the morality or intention of an assessee does not enter into the field of adjudication in taxing law. Considering that there is total absence of corroborative or affirmative evidence and the fact that assessment order, on which the charges were based, has itself been set aside, I allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
