9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1056X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... two cannot be made without any technical examination or corroboration. The original order did not give any reason to support the allegation of clandestine removal - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee. - Appeals No. 52594-52595 of 2015 - Final Order No.55234-55235/2016 - Dated:- 24-11-2016 - Shri Dr. Satish Chandra, President And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate - for the appellants. Shri R.K. Manjhi, Authorized Representative (DR) - for the Respondent. Per. B. Ravichandran :- These two appeals are against common impugned order dated 31/03/2015 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur. The main appellant (M/s Bhagwati Kripa Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd.) were engaged i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Original Authority failed to appreciate the process undertaken by the appellant in manufacture kraft paper. He submitted that the first register and the second register show the flow of materials from raw material stage to finished product ready for clearance. Only when the kraft paper in marketable condition emerges then the same is entered in RG-1 register. The trimming waste which arises in stage two is technically known as broke which is re-fed in the system used captively. The learned Counsel submitted that the Original Authority simply proceeded in a presumptive manner that waste can be allowed only in the initial pulping stage and trimming waste cannot be considered as manufacturing waste. Without having any corroborative evidence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the paper rolls are trimmed and cut as per the requirement of the customers. It is the plea of the appellant that the trimmings cuttings are not marketable and they are re-fed for further process of manufacture. A charge of clandestine removal based solely on such technical issue of waste arising at stage two cannot be made without any technical examination or corroboration. The original order did not give any reason to support the allegation of clandestine removal. We find that there is no ground to sustain such allegation based on the facts recorded in the impugned order itself. As such, we find the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. The appeals are allowed. (Order pronounced in open court on 24/11/2016.) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
