9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ember (T) [Order per : Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)]- The impugned order stands passed by the authorities below in the de-novo proceedings when the matter was earlier remanded by the Tribunal vide Order No.C-II/2002/02/WZB/2002, dt.18.6.02. The lower authority has confirmed the demand of duty against the appellant in respect of Solvent CIX and Xylene received by the appellant without payment of duty in terms of Notification No.276/67 which exempts the said goods from the duty subject to their utilization in the manufacture of pesticides. 2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of pesticides and as per the process of manufacture given in the CT-2 certificate and the declaration filed by them, one barr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents of the pesticides were also recorded wherein they confirmed having received the pesticides from the appellant. 3. It is seen that while dealing with the statement of the appellants proprietor, Shri R.K. Sanghvi, the lower authority has held that the retraction was mechanical in as much as the said person has clearly accepted the clearances of duty free material without use of the same in the pesticides. We, however, note that said retraction was within a period of 6 days and the fact that the deponent was not familiar with English language, has not been rebutted by the lower authority. As such, we are of the view that the said retracted statement cannot be made the sole basis of holding against the appellant, especially when in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contrary. 4. It is further seen that the appellants have placed an affidavit of Shri Navani Haresh D., Proprietor of the transporter which is to the effect that he has delivered and unloaded the goods procured from IPCL at the factory premises of the assessee. The said affidavit stand rejected by the adjudicating authority on the ground that on some occasions, goods might have been brought to the factory and perhaps even stored there and this fact is not sufficient to establish that the goods were used in the manufacture of specified pesticides. The said observations of the adjudicating authority in the realm of surmises and conjectures. When the chemicals from IPCL have definitely landed at the factory premises of the appellant and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
