9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 990X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... af, Asstt. Commissioner (A.R.) for the Revenue Shri Pratick Dawar, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER Per: Mrs. Archana Wadhwa Being aggrieved by the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the Revenue has filed the present appeal. 2. I have heard Md.Altaf, A.R. appearing for the Revenue and Shri Pratech Dawar, ld.Advocate appearing for the Respondent, who seeks adjournment. As I find no justifiable reason for adjournment of the matter, and proceed to hear the Revenue s appeal on the basis of the records. 3. The respondent is engaged in the manufacture of gutkha and Central Excise Officers seized the respondents branded gutkha from four different places. Inasmuch as the owner of the said place, could not produce the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fecting sale ex-factory gate the appellant had also stated that the appellant never facilitated transport of goods from the factory to any Transport Company or Railway Booking Office. It was specifically affirmed with corroborative evidence that it was the sole responsibility of consignee who use to purchase the goods at ex factory gate of transporter or carry it on its own account. I find force in the contention of the appellant that if appellant had clandestinely cleared such huge quantity of finished goods on 15.03.07 which were seized at different locations then there must be shortage of finished goods then the recorded balance of the appellant. It is not the instant case contrary to department s findings. A negligible quantity o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the stock of finished goods were detected during search, no proof of flow back of cash, statement of transporters that they had booked the consignment of shyam bahar gutkha on bill freight were born by consignee, the goods seized at Railway Stations was booked in the name of Rakesh Verma and appellant did not take provisional release of the goods seized at Railway Station and finally appellant had never accepted clandestine removal of the said goods are in favour of appellant . 6. Revenue in their memo of appeal, have nowhere improved upon the evidences, which stand considered by the Appellate Authority as insufficient. It does not require reference to any decision of the High Court to observe that allegations and findings of the cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
