9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 751X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt: Shri B.B. Sharma, AR JUDGEMENT Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa: Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. I have heard Shri B.B. Sharma, learned AR appearing for the Revenue, and Shri S.P. Ojha learned Consultant appearing for the respondent. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots. The contingents of Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI in short) on 18.01.2007, while conducting investigation at the end of another manufacturer of Steel Rounds namely M/s Ranbir Steel Industries, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as RSI) found some Kuccha slips containing details of Date, Truck No. an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Respondent filed an appeal against the said order before Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that slips recovered from the gate keeper of a third party cannot be held to be sufficient evidence for clandestine clearance of the goods from their factory. They further contended that no investigation was caused from the partners of RSI and no statement of the owner of the appellant unit was recorded. Further no investigations were made at the Respondents end. They also submitted that there is no evidence of excess consumption of electricity and over cash payment from RSI. Further no cross-examination of the gate keeper and authorized signatory of RSI was granted to the respondent inspite of request made by them. Commissioner (Appeals), apprec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proximation/ average basis on presumptions and assumptions which can not stand the scrutiny of law, hence not maintainable. 4. Revenue in their memo of appeal have relied upon the same evidence and has not adduced any further evidence to show clandestine clearance of goods from the respondents factory. As rightly observed by Commissioner (Appeals), allegation of clandestine removal are required to be proved by production of sufficient and tangible evidence. Recovery of kaccha slips from the gate keeper of another unit read with the inculpating statement of the authorized representative of third party cannot be held to be admissible evidence so as to uphold the allegation of clandestine removal, especially when such persons have not been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
