9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 592X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y is engaged in the manufacture of commercial plywood, block board, flush doors and panel doors. During the period in dispute 1995-96 to 1998-99, that panel doors were exempt from payment of duty. The duty demand of the above said amount, had been confirmed against the company, on the ground that during the period in dispute, it has cleared, commercial ply block board and flush doors, in the guise of panel doors, to various dealers/traders. For substantiating this ground, reliance has been placed by the revenue, on the testimony of five traders namely; (i) Shri Rakesh Sharma, Prop. of M/s. Chirag Industries (ii) Shri Pramod Agarwal, Prop. of M/s. Goyal Plywood Traders (iii) Shri S.L. Gupta, Partner of M/s. Gupta Timber Store (iv) Shri Raghu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... doors and if there had been, during the period in dispute, the company was liable to discharge duty on the intermediate product i.e. plywood manufactured and captively used in the production of panel doors and since no duty was paid, it should be presumed that there was no manufacture of panel doors. But we are unable to accept his contention. We find from record that from the core veneers purchased from the market, the company manufactured firstly plywood and that plywood was used as input by it, for the manufacture of panel doors. The non-maintenance of proper record about the movement and utilization of the plywood, in or in relation to the manufacture of panel doors, or non-payment of duty on it did not warrant any inference that there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... They also did not produce any document or copies of entries in the books to corroborate their statements, that they did not purchase panel doors, as recorded in their invoices, but purchased block board, commercial ply etc. There is also nothing on record to suggest if the officer carried out verification of stock of the goods in their premises, to ascertain if the panel doors were in their stock at that time or not. Under these circumstances, their statements did not carry any legal value. Shri Raghubir Singh trader in his statement has accepted the purchase of panel doors from the appellant-company. Therefore, his testimony did not advance the case of the revenue at all. Shri Sumesh Goel of M/s. Modern Trading Corporation, had no doubt de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rgument of ld. SDR that since no panel doors were found in the stock, in the factory at the time of visit by the Excise Officers, it be presumed that there was no production of these goods, cannot be accepted, in the light of facts regarding supply of these goods by the company, to nearly 300 traders/dealers, of huge amount, during the period in dispute, as detailed above. 9. It is well settled that the charge of clandestine manufactured and removal of goods against the assessee cannot be based on assumptions and presumptions, it has to be substantiated by the revenue by adducing evidence cogent, and tangible evidence. But has failed to do so. 10. In the light of what has been discussed above, the impugned order cannot be sustained and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
