9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 884X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d clandestinely. There is force in the argument of the appellants that department did not compare the data with the data related to clearances of goods on which duty was paid and the goods manufactured by them which did not attract duty. We, therefore, find that the show cause notice is based on presumption. Hence, the subject of cause notice is not sustainable. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief - Appeal No. E/1066-1069/2007-EX [DB] - Final Order No. 70766-70769/2016 - Dated:- 23-8-2016 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri B.L. Narasimhan Shri Hrishikesh, Advocates for the Appellant Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, Supdt. (A.R.) for the Department ORD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utiable goods and duty of ₹ 79,98,533/- was demanded through the said show cause notice. Further, another duty of ₹ 76,351/- was also demanded through the said show-cause-notice based on File No.55. Further, there were proposals to impose penalty and proposals were also included in the said show cause notice for personal penalty on Shri Ved Chanana, Director of the Company, Shri Devendra Kumar Kakkar, Factory Manger and Smt. Chandrika and Shri V.K. Sharma. The noticee have submitted their reply to the show cause notice stating that they were manufacturing both dutiable and exempted goods and they were also maintaining their records properly and that none of the functionaries of the manufacturing unit nor any of the customers wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... propriate an amount of ₹ 15 lakhs already deposited, imposed equal penalty and further imposed personal penalty of ₹ 45 lakhs on Shri Ved Chanana, ₹ 40 lakhs on Shri Devendra Kumar Kakkar ₹ 50,000/-, on Smt. Chandrika and ₹ 35,000/- on Shri V.K. Sharma. 3. Challenging the findings of Ld. Original Authority as stated above through Order-in-Original No.05/Commissioner/2007 dated 27.02.2007, the appellant is before this Tribunal, wherein the appellant-M/s Super Cassettes Industries Ltd., Mrs. Chandrika, Mr. Ved Chanana and Mr. D.K. Kakkar have filed appeals before this Tribunal. The grounds of appeal are as follows:- (a) Allegation in the sow cause notice confirmed by the Commissioner only on the basis of ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act. (i) Legal requirement of evidence of procurement of raw material, labour employed electricity consumed, transport of such goods to their buyer/dealer and collection of payments and flow of funds relating to such transaction not met and hence allegation of clandestine manufacture and sale of goods is unsustainable. (j) No discrepancy was found in stocks of raw material. (k) No corroborative evidence from the buyers and others such as transporters, could be collected. (l) Demand is merely based on presumption and assumptions as no direct material evidence brought on record. (m) There was no cogent and reliable evidence for clandestine manufacture and clearance. (n) Shortage/excess in physical stock taking of goods was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... done and it was only presumed that the data available on loose sheets was indicating the value of the goods cleared clandestinely. The show cause notice issued on the basis of presumption is not sustainable in law and therefore, the appeals may be allowed. 5. Learned Counsel for the D.R. has submitted written submissions. The written submissions are extracted from the impugned Order-in-Original and there is no addition in the written submissions beyond what is stated in the impugned Order-in-Original. 6. We have carefully taken into consideration the rival contentions. We have also gone through the statements and the various Annexures enclosed to the show cause notice. We find that in none of the statements there was any admission tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
