TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 443X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the appellants under reported the figures in the returns filed before the Range Superintendent and, therefore, the figures of the production available on the record of the supplier of NABB cannot be more authentic than the figures reflected in Statutory record like RG-1 and reported in Statutory returns like RT-12 - Revenue could not produce any evidence of procurement of all the raw materials for manufacture of the alleged quantity, clearance of alleged quantity, transportation of the same and receipt of monetary transactions of the same - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - APPEAL Nos. E/2901-2902/2009, E/376-377/2010 & E/814-815/2010-EX[DB] - Final Order Nos. 70821-70826/2017 - Dated:- 7-8-2017 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present appellants were franchise holders who used to procure NABB from M/s Parle Exports Ltd. and used to manufacture Aerated Drinks out of the same. The Central Excise Officers recorded certain statements of personnel working with M/s Parle Exports Ltd. and they came to know that each franchise holder like the appellants in the present case used to submit on monthly basis figures of sales of bottles of aerate drinks manufactured by them out of the NABB procured from M/s Parle Exports Ltd. The officers compared the figures reported by the franchise holders like the present appellants, with the figures of manufacture of aerated water reflected in their respective Central Excise records like RG-1 and reported in RT-12 returns submitted to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y M/s Varanasi Bottling Company Ltd. on the basis of such figures. In Para 23 of the said show cause notice, there was an allegation of suppression and extended period was invoked and through said show cause notice and its corrigendum M/s Varanasi Bottling Company Ltd. were called upon to the show cause as to why the differential Central Excise Duty of ₹ 57,20,248/- should not be demanded from them for the period from February, 1989 to July 1993. On the basis of same investigation at the end of M/s Parle Exports Ltd. appellant-M/s Amrit Bottlers Pvt. Ltd were also issued with a show cause notice dated 25.02.1994 covering the period from 1988 to 1993 calling upon to show cause as to why differential Central Excise Duty of ₹ 58,92 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wherein Central Excise Duty of ₹ 58,92,247/- was confirmed and Shri Rakesh Ladhani was imposed with a penalty of ₹ 5 lakhs under Rule 209 A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The show cause notice dated 25.03.1994 issued to M/s Brindavan Bottlers Ltd. was adjudicated through Order-in-Original No. 01/CE/PKJ/CCE/ADJN/2010 dated 08.01.2010 through which Central Excise Duty demand of ₹ 76,89,248/- was confirmed and Shri M.D. Ladhani was with personal penalty of ₹ 5 lakhs under Rule 209 A of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Aggrieve by the said orders M/s Varanasi Bottling Company Ltd., Shri C.P. Kejriwal, M/s Amrit Bottlers Pvt. Ltd., Shri Rakesh Ladhani, M/s Brindavan Bottlers Ltd. and Shri M.D. Ladhani have preferred appeals b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the case of Goa Bottling Company Ltd. that the demand of duty arrived at only by applying the theoretical ratio of the quantity of beverages base and the quantity of beverage obtained from that base cannot sustain and that in the said case this Tribunal has also observed that there was no reason to believe that the reported sales figures really represented the actual figures of production. Learned counsel Shri Vineet Kumar Singh has submitted that the arguments put forth by learned counsel Shri. Atul Gupta apply to the appeals represented by him. 4. Learned AR has supported the impugned Orders-in-Original. He has further submitted that the appellants had accepted the correctness of the figures submitted by them to M/s Parle Exports ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|