9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 776X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplication filed by Revenue is rejected - E/2430/2010 - 542/2011-EX(PB) - Dated:- 11-5-2011 - Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, Shri Mathew John, JJ. Shri I. Beg, DR, for the Appellant. Shri V.S. Agarwal, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Mathew John, Member (T)]. In this case the Revenue has come in Appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeal) dropping charges of clandestine manufacture and removal by the Respondent. During the investigation stage the Respondents had made a deposit of Rs. l6 lakhs towards his duty liabilities under investigation. Consequent to the order-in-appeal, this amount has become refundable. The Revenue is seeking a stay on the order of the Commissioner (Appeal) so that the money deposi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tory premises. Further penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules was also proposed. After adjudication proceedings duty to the tune of Rs. 28,14,948 was confirmed. The goods seized at the factory and shop of were confiscated and allowed to be redeemed on payment of fine. A penalty of Rs. 28,14,948 was imposed under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with various Rules under Central Excise Rules, 2002. 4. The Respondents filed appeal with the Commissioner (Appeal) who after considering the submissions of the Respondents set aside the whole order of the adjudicating authority. Consequently the amount of Rs. 16 lakhs deposited during investigation has become refundable. 5. The Ld. DR submits that during investigation the Pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent; (e) The demands in the SCN is based on sales figures and not based on any data showing manufacture; (f) The case is made mainly on the basis of statements. These statements are not in the matter of explaining the kutcha slips seized or the meanings of entries in computer. The statements are to the effect that all the goods manufactured in the Respondents' factory were sold through their shop. These statements are extrapolated to mean that all the goods sold from the shop of the Respondents were manufactured at the factory of the Respondents. 8. The major part of the seizure is at the shop and not at the factory. The SCN is not clear on the issue as to what are the goods seized at the shop and whether the Responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evading taxes and duties, it cannot be a license to the Revenue to demand excise duties without making out a clear case of goods manufactured and cleared from the Respondent s factory. Prima facie we see lack of clarity in the whole proceedings in the matter of evidence to show clandestine manufacture and clearance. 11. Prima facie this appears to be a case where the Respondent had evaded tax on sales and the central excise authorities have forced the Respondent to make payment of money using pressure tactics. 12. In the circumstance we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of Commissioner (Appeal) at this stage by giving stay against its implementation. Accordingly the stay application filed by Revenue is rejected. (Pron ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
