9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 612X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut of said scrap. Therefore, in the absence of any investigation and evidence regarding receipt, manufacture and clearance of goods by the appellant, the demand was rightly set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) - demand set aside - appeal rejected - decided in favor of assessee. - E/667, 668, 864 & 865/12 - A/87190-87193/17/SMB - Dated:- 26-4-2017 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Shri. V.K. Shastri, Asst. Comm. (AR) for appellant Shri. S.B. Awate, Advocate with V.S.Awate, Adv. for respondent ORDER Per: Ramesh Nair 1. The fact of the case is that as per the investigation of DGCEI, Zonal Unit, Mumbai, a modus operandi was observed wherein M/s.J.R. Duralumin Alloys (JRD in short), Bangalore were purchasing im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... units manufactured and cleared the goods clandestinely. 3. Shri S.B.Awate, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that there is no investigation as regards actual receipt of the aluminium scrap and manufacture and clandestine removal of the goods. Therefore, the demand was confirmed by the original authority without any basis and the same is not sustainable. 3.1 He further submits that except the manufacturers appeal, ie., by REPL and SEPL, all other appeals involved amount which is below ₹ 10 lakhs, therefore the same are liable to be dismissed only on the litigation policy of the GOI as per Circular No.390/MISC/163/2010-JC dated 17/08/11, which was amended by the Circular dated 17/12/2015. 4. I have ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the alleged quantity of imported aluminum scrap was transported to the premises of appellant No.1. Further, the manufacture of excisable goods was not investigated into. Even if, for argument sake it is presumed that the alleged quantity of imported aluminum scrap was transported to the premises of appellant No.1 still it does not prove that the alleged quantity of finished goods on which duty has been demanded was manufactured. I also, find that there is no investigation into sale and transportation of alleged quantity of excisable goods. Therefore, I have to agree with the submissions of the appellant No.1 that the entire show cause notice is based on assumptions and presumptions so far as the same is concerned with goods manufactured. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
