9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1072X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d opinion given by the hand writing expert brings out the fact that detailed reasoning has been given by the expert and the opinion cannot be brushed aside lightly. - Excise Appeal No. 175 of 2007 (SM) - Final Order No. 51788/2016 - Dated:- 16-5-2016 - SHRI B. RAVICHANDRAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : Shri G.R. Singh, Authorized Representative (DR) For the Respondent : Shri B.L. Narsimhan and Vipul Agarwal, Advocates ORDER Per. B. Ravichandran :- The appeal by Revenue is against order dated 02/11/2006 of Commissioner (Appeals), Delhi I. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of plastic parts for motor vehicles liable to Central Excise duty. Certain search and enquiry operations were carried ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing in the impugned order regarding the opinion given by the hand writing expert. The same cannot be considered as a proper evidence as specific observations regarding reason for the expert opinion has not been recorded. The comparison of signature should be on the basis of specimen signature which was not taken. 4. The statements of various persons given under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 brought out the modus operandi adopted by the appellant for clandestine removal of goods. The clandestine removal of goods has been established by the recovery of parallel invoices and fictitious challan issued under Rule 57F (4). The learned AR relied on the various case laws cited in the grounds of appeal in support of the appeal filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... signature on these invoices. The learned Counsel further submitted that deposit of ₹ 5 lakhs made by the respondent during investigation did not establish the clear clandestine clearance. Finally, it is the case of the respondent that the charge of clandestine removal cannot be sustained only on the basis of documents recovered from third parties who are antagonistic to the business activities of the respondent. He relied on various decided cases in support of his contentions. 6. Having heard both the sides and on perusal of appeal records, it emerges that the only point for decision is a correctness of the finding recorded in the impugned order regarding the un-sustainability of the charge of clandestine removal of excisable goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied. It is seen that the impugned order examined in detail the contents and the bonafide nature of these invoices and came to the conclusion that the alleged parallel invoices could not be relied upon in the absence of support for their authenticity. Similarly, the impugned order dealt with in detail all the evidences examined by the Original Authority before arriving at the finding. Regarding job work challans issued under Rule 57F the findings in the impugned order cannot be faulted. The statement of Shri Jimruddin is general and uncorroborated. No enquiry was conducted at the job workers end. 7. On careful consideration of the analysis and finding as recorded in the impugned order, I find no reason to interfere with the said finding. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
