9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 455X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the buyer to Respondent is not established by any evidence. - there is no proof like parallel invoice, or other documents maintained by manufacturer corroborating the date collected from such commission agent and transporters. No investigation is conducted whether Respondent actually manufactured such large quantities during the relevant time. If Revenue wants to rely upon the entries of document seized from the premises of third party, it is for them to prove the genuineness of those entries with the Respondent. The proceedings and allegation of clandestine removal cannot be based on surmises and conjectures or mere suspicions. The appellant has not been able to demonstrate anything to disturb the findings made in the impugned order. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nse to summons Respondent along with many other co-noticees had submitted records/sales invoices issued by them. Upon verification of record of M/s Kailash/broker the officers of the department observed that invoices have been issued by Respondent in substantial number of cases, but with regard to 604.390 MT of Sponge Iron, there were no sales invoices issued by Respondent. Similarly on verification of dispatches of M/s Shree Bajrang Transport it was found that no invoice was issued against 124.80 MT of Sponge Iron. Again, dispatches of records pertaining to M/s Purvanchal Carriers compared with sales details provided by Respondent though invoices have been issued for substantial number of cases, but against 67.910 MT of Sponge Iron, the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence. Further that Shri Kailash Agarwal, the Commission agent deposed that he used to write B with the invoice number against the entries in the case of sale invoices which was issued by manufacturers and when no invoice was issued he used to write R against the entry. That these evidences established the case of removal of goods in clandestine manner. 4. Per Contra, the learned Counsel Shri M.P. Singh supported the impugned order and argued that the only basis for initiation of proceedings and confirmation of demand by the adjudicating authority was the records of a third party i.e.; the commission agent and transporters. These were not at all corroborated and there was no positive evidence to establish clandestine removal of go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Agent cannot be the basis of alleging the charge of clandestine removal. There is no evidence pertaining to the excess use of electricity for the purpose of manufacture of the item in question. The electricity required to be used would have shown excess consumption for manufacture of the final product. No such evidence has been brought forth. There is no evidence of clandestine purchase and sale of raw material and final product. There is no evidence pertaining to flow back of funds. Therefore, the entire case is based on entries found recorded in the record of transporters and Commission Agent does not have reliability and credibility. 5. The Bench raised a query as to what is the marking of B and R in the records of the Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
