9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 544X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thna, JJ. For the Petitioner : Sri Jeevan J Neeralgi, Adv JUDGMENT The appellant-Revenue has preferred the present appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in holding that there is no evidence to prove clandestine removal merely on the basis of the Denovo Order-In-Original No.01/2008 dated 22.01.2008 of the Commissioner, without going into the various corroborative evidences submitted by the Revenue? 2. Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT and the Commissioner of Central Excise, are right in holding that Register No.7 being a private record is not a sufficient evidence in the light of the fact that the Respondent has not maintained proper statutory reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Revenue has mainly relied upon the entries made in seized Register. It is not disputed that the said Register was not being maintained by the respondent in the ordinary course of their business but was a private Register being maintained by the respondent's employee Shri Nayak. The first obligation on the part of the Revenue was to examine Shri Nayak and record his statement, seeking clarifications in respect of the entries. For the reasons best known to the Revenue officers, this has not been done. If the author of the entries made in the said private Register has not been examined by the investigating officers, the same proves fatal to the Revenue's case. 9. I also find that the Tribunal while remanding the matter had dir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y submitting that the invoices of the said trading companies were in respect of the goods, which they are incapable of being manufactured by them. The said companies are in no way connected with the assessee company and there is nothing on record to show that they were fictitious firms and the consideration for sale of the goods by the said firms traveled to the assessee. The adjudicating authority has examined the said plea of the assessee and has categorically recorded that the goods cleared under their invoices were rib bars of 8 mm and 25mm whereas the goods being manufactured by them were from 10 - 20 mm and they do not have machinery to manufacture the said goods. In the absence of any evidence to rebut the above findings of the Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
