9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (6) TMI 383X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mangalore. The allegation against the appellant is that they are proprietary unit having Central Excise Registration and were manufacturers of aerated waters falling under Chapter heading 22 of the Schedule to the CET Act, 1985. (a) The said goods were cleared with the brand name TORINO , TEACHERS . It was found that these brand names were registered trade name of M/s. Bangalore Soft Drinks Pvt. Ltd. and hence they were not eligible for the benefit of the SSI Exemption Notification No. 16/97 CE, dated 1-4-1997. (b) Besides this allegation, it was found that they had also clandestinely removed goods without paying duty and the allegation to support this ground was based on the shortage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted that there is no evidence of clearance of goods clandestinely. There were no removals or evidence of any person purchasing it including the evidence of transporters bill. There is no evidence of flow back of money. He also relied on large number of judgments to contend that demands cannot be confirmed in absence of any evidence. 6. The learned SDR did not seriously contest this issue. 7. On a careful consideration, we are of the considered opinion that the demands on clandestine removal of goods solely based on shortages of crown corks cannot be held in view of the fact that there is no collaborative evidence in favour of Revenue. There is no admission of any clearances made clandestinely and hence, in view of the large number ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d (supra), therefore, the revision of value on this ground is set aside. (d) Non-entry in the RG 1 Register 11. The learned Counsel submitted that the goods which were ready for removal but entries having not been made in the RG1 Register is no ground for confiscation and imposition of penalty and fine and hence, he prayed for setting aside the redemption fine imposed. 12. The learned SDR defended the order and contended that the goods had already been made ready for despatch and hence, non-entry in the RG1 Register is an offence and its confiscation and imposition of fine is justified. 13. On a careful consideration, we agree with learned SDR that the order of confiscation of goods which had been ready for pack for removal and its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
