2016 (4) TMI 325

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e on record that went against the appellant to impeach its conduct proving clandestine removal. Therefore,a reasoned and speaking order is passed by adjudicating authority and nothing is controverted in the grounds of appeal and there is no scope to intervene to the adjudication. - Decided against the appellant
SHRI D.N. PANDA, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Petitioner : None For the Respondent : Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) ORDER None present for the appellant today. When it was found that the appellant was not present for condonation of delay against its application in that behalf, notice was issued to the appellant on 16.3.2016 to appear in person or through authorized representative to explain its case. 2. Dilatory tactics of the app .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a case of evasion of Revenue before him for adjudication. He tested seized document marked as 7 and 8 of the mahazar dated 18.2.2009. That indicated clearance of the aluminium sulphur powder without excisable invoice. When such fact came to his notice, he proceeded to examine various corroborating evidence gathered by investigation. He tested that in paragraph 15 of his order. While testing the materials in that paragraph, he has also looked into various defence pleas of the appellant. Appellant pleaded that unaccounted raw materials resulted in flow of the clandestinely removed goods. Availability of more water in the product convinced him that the appellant had unaccounted raw material to produce unaccounted finished goods for clandestine .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the 5 MT mentioned as Local, there are no invoices. (d) Further for the date 12.1.2007 the production was 12MT and 4MT (Oorvasi) mentioned as dispatch. But the assessee mentions that there is a dispatch of 15.6 MT and in the RG1 which is actually for the date 13.1.2007 which can be seen from the same scribbling pad in S. No. 8 for the date 13.1.2007 and for which also there is no invoice but there is paper mentioning that the quantity of 15.6 MT has been dispatched to TNPL. Hence, the 4MT dispatched do not have bill. (e) Again for the date 23.3.2007 the dispatch quantity is mentioned as 4MT mentioned local whereas there is invoice mentioning the name of the party as Ambition Chemicals for a quantity of 9.5MT. It only proves that for th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X