9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 1037X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the duty was imposed on the appellant company and penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs was imposed on the Director. On an appeal filed by the respondent, the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the order-in-original and against that order, Revenue is in appeal. 2. Learned JDR on behalf of the Revenue submitted that the appellants in respect of duty demand of Rs. 13,72,209/- in respect of Veneer had made a claim that this demand cannot be sustained since these Veneers were not manufactured by them at all, but these were only traded. He submits that the respondents had not taken the permission required to be taken for trading the goods under Rule 51A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Further, he also submits that invoice-cum-challan for sales were rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the quality nor the quantity of veneer or the plywood cleared have been ascertained on actual basis but on the basis of single invoice. The Department has also not been able to produce any evidence to show that these goods were manufactured in the factory. Further, he also submits that there is no clear admission by any of the supervisors or the director. Further, the transporter also has only stated that the goods were loaded from the factory and there is no other admission. The Department has not conducted any investigation to find out as to who are the buyers of these veneer and plywood cleared from the factory. On the other hand, he submits that the trading activity was clearly shown in the sales-tax return wherein all transactions we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... verification at the consignee s end was also made by DGCEI in respect of trading activity; that the claim or the grounds raised by the Revenue that the payment was made only in 2002 is not true in respect of entire quantity but only in respect of part quantity; that there is no evidence whatsoever produced by the Department regarding manufacture of veneer by the appellant whereas the appellant has produced the copies of purchase invoice, ledger account of creditors from whom the veneer was purchased, payment details to creditors and audited statement of Income tax etc. 5. As regards contravention of provisions of Rule 51A, we find that the in the light of the evidence produced by the respondent to show that all the activities with regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... documents contained the details of the quantity, their size, thickness and to whom the goods were delivered. In the absence of any investigation to unearth any of these details, in the absence of any tangible evidence relating to the manufacture and clearance, we find ourselves unable to consider the appeal filed by the Revenue favourably. Even though, several judgments were cited by both sides, we are not discussing any of them since we consider that on the basis of facts and investigation in this case, Revenue has failed to make out a case against the appellant. 6. In view of above discussion, the appeal filed by the Revenue has no merit and accordingly the same is rejected. (Dictated and Pronounced in Court) - - TaxTMI - TMITax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
