9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (4) TMI 298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing ceramic tiles cleared by them and that way evaded duty. In the case of Fine Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. there was also allegation that certain quantities of tiles were clandestinely removed without payment of duty. The period involved is 1996-98. Accordingly, Show-cause Notices were issued proposing recovery of short-levy and imposition of penalties on the respondents. 2. In adjudication, Commissioner confirmed the duty demands at much lesser amounts than proposed in the Show-cause Notices. Imposed much lower penalties too. Revenue is in appeal against those orders. 3. The submission of the learned SDR is that the quantifications of duty evasion made by the Commissioner are grossly incorrect as he had adopted an erroneous approach in evaluat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. In regard to the charge of clandestine removal, it is the learned Senior Counsel s submission that Commissioner has carefully weighed the evidence before him and determined the quantities so cleared and no intervention is called for. 5. We have perused records and considered the submissions made by both sides. We may note the finding of the Commissioner in regard to quantification of demand arising from undervaluation: 3.4. There are statements from three other dealers, (1) Mayur Kumar B., Partner of M/s. Choice Distributors, Cochin, (2) Shri Abdul Salim, Partner of M/s. Orient Corporation, and (3) Shri Ashraf Lambath, Partner of M/s. Mangala Sales Corporation. It is significant that there is no chits/slip available relating to sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a number of invoice books has been shown as relied upon documents. There is no evidence of processing of these invoice books. In view of the above lacunae in the investigation, it is not possible to accept the duty calculation of the show cause memo. Even if one would like to apply the price charged from M/s. B.K. Enterprises to other buyers, it is impossible to do so, because how the price charged from M/s. B. K. Enterprises is arrived at in Annexure-B (including Annexures B1 and B2), is not given. 6. The rule of evidence followed and findings reached by the Commissioner are clearly not sustainable. In a case of clandestine operations, the Revenue authorities cannot be put to prove every detail of the clandestine transaction. That too, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find that the situation in the present case is closely comparable to the case before the Apex Court. Evidence gathered during the investigation has convincingly established that part of the sale price from the Madhya Pradesh distributors was being collected by cash. Such evidence is lacking in respect of sales to dealers in other areas. In such a situation, evidence obtained in respect of sales to Madhya Pradesh distributors cannot lead to the reasonable inference that similar was the case in respect of all sales in other areas also. We, therefore, accept the appellant s submission that the demand cannot be extended beyond the sales to Madhya Pradesh. The differential duty in respect of sales to Madhya Pradesh has been computed by the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
