9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 708X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne clearance of the goods. The respondents have explained the reason for raising of such commercial invoices, which relates to previous clearances made under the cover of statutory Central Excise invoices. It is well settled that clandestine removal has to be proved by production of sufficient, positive and tangible evidence. There is virtually no evidence on record. As such, I am of the view that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of expanded polystyrene moulding, packing falling under heading 39 and corrugated boxes falling under Chapter 48. The appellants entire product is being sold by them to M/s. Samcor Glass Ltd. Kota who are paying them either through letter of credit or through hundis. 3. As per Revenue, M/s. Dolsun Containers has received an amount of ₹ 54,49,284 from M/s. Samcor Glass Ltd. through four le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oral submissions made at the time of personal hearing. I find that the appellant No. 1 had supplied their finished goods to SGL, during the period July 2000 to April 2001, under cover of statutory invoices and on payment of appropriate excise duty but SGL did not make payment for the aforesaid goods to the appellant No 1. As SGL was not making payment of the goods, the appellants, approached SGL a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or any evidence for showing the clandestine clearance. Commercial invoices were raised for the limited purpose of recovery of the outstanding amounts from M/s. Samcor Glass Ltd. He also referred to the Tribunal s decision in the case of Arch Pharma Labs Ltd. v. CCE [2005 (182) E.L.T. 413] wherein under similar circumstances Tribunal held that mere fact of raising of Commercial invoices cannot be h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of sufficient, positive and tangible evidence. There is virtually no evidence on record. As such, I am of the view that Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly accepted the stand of the respondents and has rightly dropped the demand. 7. In view of the foregoing, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals). Revenue s appeals are rejected. (Operative part of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
