9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. The relevant facts of the case are that the appellant, Steel Tubes of India Ltd. (henceforth referred as STIL) were job workers of M/s. Sidhartha Tubes Ltd. (henceforth referred as STL). M/s. STIL are manufacturers of M.S. Pipes and Tubes and have undertaken the job working of converting the H.R. coils received from M/s. STL into tubes and sending them back. M/s. STL had imported H.R. coils under Advance licence and has committed to export obligation as per the provisions. Based on intelligence, that there was some violation of the conditions of the Advance licence both i.e. M/s. STIL and M/s. STL were visited by the officers of the Central Excise Department. They found some quantity of H.R. coils, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 on appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confirmation of duty on STIL, and imposition of penalty on M/s. STL and others, but dropped the penalty imposed on M/s. STIL. 3. The learned advocate for the appellants submits that their appeal against the order-in-appeal is on three main points : (i) He submits that the demand of duty from M/s. STIL is not correct in as much that the adjudicating authority as well as the appellate authority has not brought on record any evidence in respect of clandestine removal of the tubes. He also submits that the findings reflect and imply that the clandestine removal of the tubes is on presumptions and assumptions and is based only on the statement of transporters. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r investigation the authorities found out that the vehicle Registration No. which were mentioned on the documents were of 2/3 wheelers which could not have transported the H.R. coils. He further submits that statement of the officers of M/s. STL clearly indicates that the H.R. coils never reached the factory of M/s. STL. It is his contention that benefit of Notification No. 202/88 is not available to the appellants as the conditions specified in the notification were not satisfied by the appellants M/s. STIL. He also submits that question of time bar does not arise as the show cause notice issued, after through investigation and since voluminous records were to be unearthed, the show cause notice was issued late. 5. Considered the sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een held by this Tribunal in catena of decisions that the demands raised on the charge of clandestine removal cannot be confirmed unless the department produces clinching evidence. I find that in this case the revenue authorities have not even recorded a statement from the officers/Managers from the production department of M/s. STIL, to show that there was manufacture of tubes from such H.R. coils purported to be sent back. When there is no evidence of manufacture of the goods, how can the charge of clandestine removal be sticked on the appellants is beyond anybody's imagination. In view of the above, the charge of clandestine removal of goods and the consequent demand thereof fails miserably. The impugned order is liable to be set aside o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
