9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (1) TMI 357X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Consultant, for the Appellant. Shri R.B. Pardeshi, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. - Heard both sides. The appellant company are a small scale unit and they are engaged in manufacture of tread rubber for 15 different types of vehicles. In the impugned order, the adjudicating Commissioner has confirmed the demand of Rs. 21,68,458/- on alleged clandes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oard and a public sector unit but no verification has been made to establish procurement of excess raw material nor any evidence has been laid regarding excess power consumption as well as transportation of goods alleged to have been removed clandestinely. He also points out that apart from the fact that there was no panchnama prepared on the date of visit of the central excise officials, there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en submitted to prove clandestine removal. He also states that the retractions made after a long period of time do not dilute the original statements made under summons before the gazetted excise officers. He also states that the department does not have to prove clandestine removal with mathematical certainty. 4. After hearing both sides at length, we find that the existence of private diar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants have clandestinely removed goods over a period of three years and three months it should not have been difficult for the departmental authorities to keep a watch on this unit and gather adequate evidence to prove such clandestine, removal. 5. After considering all aspects of the case including the cited case laws, we are of the view that there is not enough material to establi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
