2006 (4) TMI 16

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... equired to be corroborated, by evidence of removal without payment of duty. As already discussed the said statements are devoid of probative value and cannot be considered to be supportive of charges of clandestine removal. Inasmuch as, there is no concrete evidence on record to show clandestine removal of the yarn, the impugned orders are unsustainable. The same are accordingly set aside and appeals allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
HON'BLE ARCHANA WADHWA, MEMBER (J) For the Appellant : Mayur Shroff, Adv. For the Respondent : Vimlesh Kumar, Authorized Representative (SDR) Order 1. Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of texturized yarn falling under Chapter 54 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. Their factory .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... As regards the statement of Smt. Tanvir and Smt. Sabina, the original adjudicating authority has observed that these two women's are partners only for the sake of the records and they are not actually looking after the day to day working of the unit. As such, he has not imposed any penalties upon them. In the light of the above observations made by the adjudicating authority the question, which arises is as to whether the statements made by them admitting the offence when they were not actually looking after the finding of the unit, can be said to be true and correct statements. Referring to the said statements adjudicating authority has ob served that keeping in view, the social status of the women in Muslim Society, it may not be agr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ies in the registered were for different purposes. 6. Considering the above arguments of the appellant in the light of the various decisions of the Tribunal, it is seen that it has been consistently held by the Tribunal that entries in rough register cannot be made the sole basis for arriving at finding of clandestine manufacture. Reference in this regard be made to the Tribunal decision in the case of Essvee Polymers (P) Ltd. [2004 (165) E.L.T. 291 (Fri.- Chennai)], Krishna Bottlers (Vijayawada) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Gantur [1999 (32) RLT 845 (CEGAT)], Ganga Rubber Industries v. Collector of Central Excise [1989 (39) E.L.T. 650 (Tribunal)]. The ratio of all the above decisions is that the allegations of clandestine .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X