9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 586X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the original authority as not substantiated. Allowing an appeal filed by the revenue, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed a demand of Rs. 93,104/- along with applicable interest against SCS and imposed equal penalty on it. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the charges were substantiated by adequate evidence. SCS challenges the above order in this appeal. 2. The Assistant Commissioner found that on the date of visit of officers to the assessee s factory on 2-8-01, no discrepancy between stock of materials and records was found. Statement of Shri C. Muthukrishnan, partner of M/s. Kamalam Tempo Services, on 13-8-01 to the effect that under invoice No. 31, dated 29-6-99 they had transported 30 bags as against 24 bags shown in the in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accepted the claim of the respondents that distance was the material factor and not the quantity. No statement was obtained from KKC, a sizing unit and job worker whose specification sheet was sought to be used to substantiate clearance of excess goods received from SCS through other buyers such as M/s. Sagayamatha Textiles, Somanur and M/s. Alwyn Textiles, Somanur. He discussed how the Department could have made a sustainable case but had failed. 3. The impugned order found clandestine clearances of cotton yarn by the appellants on the basis of statements made by transporters. The statements were to the effect that they had transported higher quantities than the respective quantities shown on the invoices. These transactions had taken pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s were found proved against the appellants solely on the basis of retracted statements of transporters. In the absence of any reliable evidence the charges have to be held not established and the impugned order confirming demand of duty of Rs. 93,104/- towards clandestine clearances and imposition of equal penalty deserved to be set aside. 5. The ld. SDR submits that the retraction of the initial statements came long later in 2004 and the same could not be accepted especially since those parties had not explained why they had given a different version initially if that was not true. The retractions deserved to be rejected. The impugned order rejecting the retraction had to be sustained. 6. I have carefully considered the case records an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
