9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1462X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In the absence of such corroborative evidence demand is not sustainable against the main assessee - the charge of clandestine removal of goods against the main assessee is not sustainable. Therefore, the demand of duty along with interest and penalty on both the assessee is not imposable. Extended period of limitation on charge of clandestine removal - Held that: - as the charge of clandestine removal has been set aside against the parties, therefore, revenues appeal deserves no merits and the ld. commissioner (A) has rightly allowed the benefit of limitation to the main assessee more over on merits. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. E/261, 262/2011-EX(SM), Appeal No. E/59665/2013-EX(SM) - Final Order No. 558 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he main assessee on the allegation of clandestine removal of finished goods and penalty on both the assessees were imposed. Further, exemption under notification number 08/2003 was denied to the assessee for the year 2008-09. On appeal the ld. Commissioner (A) allowed the exemption holding that denial of exemption is barred by limitation. Aggrieved with the said order Revenue is in appeal. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the sole case of the Revenue is on the basis of submission of loose slips authored by Shri Pradeep Bhardwaj and Shri Satish Pandey. They were not confronted with these loose sheets who are the authors of these sheets and without their confirmation demand merely on the basis of the demand by managing dire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing that the items mentioned in the loose slips are sold by them over and above actual clearances recorded in the statutory records. Admittedly, apart from the statement of managing director no their evidence has been brought by the revenue on record to show that the goods have been manufactured how the inputs for these goods have been procured and how these goods have been cleared i.e. mode of transportation. The authors of these loose slips have not been called for clarification of clandestine clearances of the goods. In the absence of such corroborative evidence demand is not sustainable against the main assessee in the light of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Davidner Sandhu Impex Ltd. (Supra) wherein this Tribunal has obs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they cleared more quantity in the month of February 2004 have to be taken with the pinch of salt. 8. Therefore, I hold that the charge of clandestine removal of goods against the main assessee is not sustainable. Therefore, the demand of duty along with interest and penalty on both the assessee is not imposable. Accordingly impugned order qua demanding duty along with interest and imposing penalty are set aside. 9. Further, I find that the case of the revenue is that extended period of limitation is invokable on the charge of clandestine removal as the charge of clandestine removal has been set aside against the parties, therefore, revenues appeal deserves no merits and the ld. commissioner (A) has rightly allowed the benefit of li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
