9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 934X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt in the case of Sanwar Agarwal Vs. Commr. of Customs (Port) [2016 (4) TMI 621 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT], observed that where the statute empowers an authority to do a certain thing in a certain way, that thing must be done only in that way or not at all. Therefore, the statement under Section 14 of the Act would require to be recorded as per procedure specified in the said Section and the letter of the father of the appellant has no statutory force. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant, who is not at all concerned with the business of the appellant. It is also contended that the letter of the father of the appellant cannot be treated as a statement under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Sanwar Agarwal Vs. Commr. of Customs (Port) reported in 2016 (336) ELT 42 (Cal.). He further submitted that the officers visited on 09.06.1999 and Show-cause notice was issued after about 15 days i.e. 26.06.1999 without any investigation. He relied upon the following decisions : (i) Sulekhram Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCEx., Ahmd.II : 2011 (273) ELT 140 (Tri.-Akhmd.) ; (ii) Vidya Laminates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCEx., Ahmd.II : 2006 (197) ELT 260 (Tri.-Mu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in the Official Gazette, amend the First Schedule : Provided that such amendment shall not alter or affect in any manner the rates specified in that Schedule in respect of goods at which duties of customs shall be leviable on the goods under the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962). (2) Every notification issued under sub-Section (1) shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is issued, before each House of the Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the notification or both Hou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... month, in the letter dated 09.06.1999, makes it clear that he was paying duty which is factually totally wrong. The appellant is the proprietor of the firm who was paying duty. I also noticed that the officers visited the factory on 09.06.1999 and the Show-cause notice was issued on 26.06.1999 within about two weeks and no enquiry was conducted. The Tribunal consistently viewed in various decisions that the charge of clandestine removal is required to be established on the basis of positive/tangible evidence. Assumption/presumption, conjectures and surmises are not sufficient to establish the charge of clandestine removal. 8. In view of the above discussions, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
