9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (7) TMI 434X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce on the record to substantiate the charge of clandestine manufacture of the goods in question (diesel generating sets, diesel engines) by M/s. Azad Engineering Works, appellant No. 1 and clearances of the same by them to the other appellants without payment of duty. Therefore, the impugned order against all the appellants deserves to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned JDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order. 3. I have heard both sides and gone through the record. The bare perusal of the record shows that appellant No. 1, M/s. Azad Engineering Works is engaged in the manufacture of diesel engines and diesel generating sets with ISI mark under the brand name of power master , power man and power shakti . The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bearing the brand name of the appellants, and got financed by the farmers on the strength of the invoices issued by the dealers, were seized during investigation. There is also no evidence on record to suggest that statements of the farmers who got those engines financed were recorded in order to ascertain the actual purchase of the engines by them from the dealers. None of the dealers including the present appellants named at Sl. No. 2 to 9, had admitted the purchase of the diesel engines, from the appellant No. 1 M/s. Azad Engineering Works, in a clandestine manner. They had rather disclosed and produced copies of the invoices vide which they purchased the diesel engines from appellant No. 1. No excess or unaccounted diesel engines were f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n about the actual existence and installation of the financed engines was done. The enquiry report prepared by the income-tax authorities was even submitted by the appellant No. 1 before the adjudicating authority, but the same has been ignored altogether without assigning any reason. 5. There is also no evidence on the record to suggest if the appellant No. 1 ever sold any engines to any farmer. No statement of any farmer as observed above was recorded in that regard. The documents collected from the Bank, as observed above, were never supplied to appellant No. 1. No cross-examination of the Bank officers was also permitted to the appellant No. 1 by the adjudicating authority. 6. The statement made by some of the individuals viz. Dali ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the record to suggest that during the period in question, they had crossed that limit and cleared the goods under misdescription in order to evade payment of duty. As observed above, no excess or shortage of the inputs nor of the finished goods was detected in the factory of the appellant No. 1 at the time of physical verification. 7. It is well settled that the charge of clandestine manufacture and removal of the goods has to be established by the Department against a manufacturer by adducing cogent, convincing and tangible evidence. Such a charge cannot be based on assumptions and presumptions. In the light of the discussion made above, this charge against appellant No. 1 does not stand proved. Therefore, the impugned order passed agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
