9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 788X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... avi Chopra, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. As per facts on records, the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of valves and cocks falling under Chapter 84 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Their unit was put to search by the Income-tax Department on 20-2-2004. As per details of survey supplied by the Income-tax authorities, the respondents had voluntarily surrendered income of Rs. 14.50 lakhs for difference in stock, Rs. 1.5 lakhs for difference in cash and amount of Rs. 15 lakhs has been surrendered as investment made for construction of factory building. The respondents also voluntarily deducted the amount of Rs. 2.56 lakhs as duty of excise on the undeclared income of Rs. 15 lakh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show cause notice culminated into an order passed by the original adjudicating authority, who dropped the demand of Rs. 8,25,729/- on deemed sale value but demanded the duty of Rs. 4.96 lakhs along with confirmation of interest and imposition of penalty of identical amount. 5. The said order of the original adjudicating authority was put to challenge before the Commissioner (Appeals), who set aside the same by observing as under :- "It is observed that though there is no dispute about surrendering of unaccounted income of Rs. 31 lacs by the appellants to the income tax department but department could not produce corroborative evidence documentary or otherwise to provide that the unaccounted income surrendered by the appellants to in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts, has held that the income voluntarily disclosed before the income tax authorities could not be added to the taxable value unless there is evidence to prove the same. Further, relying on the above decision, the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 581/2010-SM(BR), dated 10-5-2010 passed in the case of C.C.E., Ludhiana v. M/s. Ramesh Studio & Colour Lab dismissed the appeal of the department on the issue of demand of Service Tax on the income surrendered to the income tax department. Similar view has been taken by the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., Chandigarh v. Bindra Tent Service - 2010 (17) S.T.R. 470 (Tri.-Del.). In view of the above discussion and following the ratio of the above cited decisions of the Tribunal, the contentions of the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ture activity of the respondents. Even there is no such admission on the said ground by any of the assessee's authorized representative. In such scenario, we find no reason to hold that surrendered income was on account of clandestine manufacturing activity. 8. We also find that apart from the decision relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Tribunal in the case of Ravi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Hyderabad - 2011 (266) E.L.T. 399 (Tri.-Bang.) has held that admission by assessee to Income Tax department as regards undisclosed/suppressed sales turnover cannot be held to be on account of clandestine removal of their final products, in the absence of any other corroborative evidence. Similarly, in the case of C.C.E., Ludhiana v. Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
