9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he one of the reasoning by the Revenue is that the appellant should have filed a fresh declaration, disclosing the higher percentage wastage. - appellate authority is only going by the differential wastage and by considering the same as sufficient evidence for clandestine removal, is rejecting the appeal. Tribunal in the case of Klene Paks Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore-I reported in [2009 (3) TMI 837 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] has held that confirmation of demand on the allegation of clandestine removal based upon the excess wastage is only an assumption and in the absence of any evidence as to the purchaser of the alleged removed goods, demand cannot be confirmed. - Decided in favour of assesse. - E/1184-1185/2007-SM - Final Order Nos. A/51268-51269/2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 years, which proceedings culminated into an order passed by the original adjudicating authority and upheld by Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, the present appeal. 4. After hearing both the sides, duly represented by Shri B.L. Narasimhan, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri R.K. Mishra, learned AR for the respondent, I find that the Revenue s entire case is based on the percentage wastage itself, declared by the appellant and actually arisen and reflected in Form IV register. Whereas the declared percentage is 4 to 5% and the actual percentage wastage varies from 7 to 16%. Apart from the above difference, there is virtually no other evidence on record, indicating any clearance of the duty free procured fabrics. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellate authority is only going by the differential wastage and by considering the same as sufficient evidence for clandestine removal, is rejecting the appeal. Tribunal in the case of Klene Paks Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore-I reported in 2009 (247) E.L.T. 271 (Tri.-Bang.) has held that confirmation of demand on the allegation of clandestine removal based upon the excess wastage is only an assumption and in the absence of any evidence as to the purchaser of the alleged removed goods, demand cannot be confirmed. 7. In view of the foregoing discussions, I find no justifiable reasons to uphold the impugned orders of the authorities below. Accordingly, the same are set aside and both the appeals are allowed with consequential relief. (Dictated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
