9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 518X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DER Per Ashok Jindal As applicant is in appeal against the impugned order. 2. The facts of the case are as under: M/s. Rhoda Textiles Pvt. Ltd. are engaged in the export of made-up textile articles, for which they procure the fabric in running length, without payment of duty, in terms of Rule 19(2) of Central Excise Rules, 2001. As the fabric is being converted into made-up articles, the wasta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period this Tribunal has held that allegation against the appellant is only on the basis of assumptions and presumptions and not supported by any evidence. Therefore, there appeal was allowed. 5. On the other hand, Ld. AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 6. Heard the parties. Considered the submission. 7. As in appellant's own case for the earlier period reported in 2014 (307) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f this I find that the demand, is based on difference of quantity of waste figures which were put forth by the Appellants in form IV and ARE-2, which is sustainable in law. In the instant case, there are positive evidence of excess waste generated as the Appellants have not shown/informed in Monthly Returns and the account of excess wastage was not explained therefore, the charges of clandestine r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In this case also we find that allegation against the appellant has been made out on the basis of differences of waste shown in ARE 2 and Form IV without any other supportive evidence. The differences in both the figures is explained by the appellant and same has not been considered by both the lower authorities. In these circumstances, allegation of clandestine removal cannot be made on the basi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
