9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1505X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... traders, without payment of duty is not supported by any documentary evidences, though the learned Authorised Representative has attempted to argue based upon the entries in the Gate Register - also, there is no evidence relied by department to prove the allegations in the show-cause notice - appeal dismissed - decided against revenue. - E/00493-00494/2009 - Final Order No. 41964-41965/2017 - Dated:- 29-8-2017 - Smt. Sulekha Beevi C.S, Member (Judicial) and Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Shri S. Govindarajan, AC (AR), For the Respondent : Shri V. Ravindran, Adv. ORDER The issue involved in both these appeals being similar are heard together and disposed of by a common order. 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctor Shri G. Thillaikumar vide his statement, dated 29.10.2001. It was agree by the reeling units for defraying the expenses on account of movement of yarns intended for conversion; (b) M/s. Thirumalai Mills Ltd., had been maintaining Gate registers for recording receipt and dispatch of yarns. Investigations found out that there were no entries in the gate register for receipt of hank yarn from the reeling units after conversion; (c) M/s. Kaveriamman Reeling Unit, was paying only the maximum charges for power consumption from Jun 3, 1999 as per report received from the TNEB as the unit was not doing any conversion work. The letter received from TNEB for power consumption details supports the above allegation; (d) The persons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that the department has filed appeal only against the main appellant and has not filed any appeal against the co-appellants. That by this fact itself, the appeals filed by the department does not merit consideration. He then adverted to the discussion in the impugned order as well as remand order of the Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation. The learned counsel pointed out that the department alleges that dutiable Cone Yarn was removed in the guise of exempted Hank Yarn. However, the goods have been removed under AR3A Certificates, which are countersigned by the Excise Officers. The department cannot disregard these documents. However, the department has raised the demand of dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against only on the main appellant. As brought out by the learned counsel for the respondent, the AR3A's would show that the Cone Yarn has been received under such documents for conversion into Hank Yarn, duly countersigned by Central Excise officers. In cross-examination, they have denied the earlier statements given by them and categorically deposed that they have received Cone Yarn for conversion to Hank Yarn. Therefore, the allegation of the department that the appellant did not remove Cone Yarn to the Reeling Units but instead they have dispatched the dutiable Cone Yarn to yarn traders, without payment of duty is not supported by any documentary evidences, though the learned Authorised Representative has attempted to argue based u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
