9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of business to establish that the statutory records and books of account are not reliable. In respect of inputs found short, no evidence has been produced to establish that they were used in the manufacture of goods clandestinely manufactured goods and its clandestine clearance. The present SCN is presumptive in nature - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/2611 & 2412/2006 & E/2443-2453/2006-EX[DB] - A/71463-71475/2017-EX[DB] - Dated:- 27-9-2017 - M/s Ridhi Enterprises - Proprietor, Rajiv Mohindru, Surya Foods Agro Ltd. , B. P. Agarwal, MD of M/s Surya Foods , Shri Naveen Agarwal, Director M/s Surya Foods, Shri Vijay Choudhary, Proprietor of M/s Shri Mansa Distributors , Shri Vinod Sharma, Proprietor of M/s Mansa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods manufactured by them. The Central Excise Officers visited the factory premise of M/s Surya on 06/09/2003. They found that sales promotion scheme called as Swarn Jayanti Dhamaka involved distribution of various types of gifts for fulfillment of target by retailers. The gifts were Wall Clock, Cello Jug, Thali Set, etc. and the sales target of ₹ 1,500/- was fixed for Wall Clock and at the highest end, a retailer selling biscuits worth ₹ 1,00,000/- would get LG Colour Television of 14 inch. The sale promotion was during the period from 1st October, 2001 to 20th Mach, 2002. The officers also visited business premises of Direct Distributors, Distributors Super Stockists. The Head Office of M/s Surya used to maintain card summa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 60,60,087/- during the period from 1st October, 2001 to 20th March, 2002. Therefore, M/s Surya was called upon to show cause as to why Central Excise duty to the tune of ₹ 60,60,087/- should not be recovered from them under proviso to Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 and why Central Excise duty amounting to ₹ 75,984/- should not be appropriated. Further all the remaining appellants were called upon to show cause as to why penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2001/02 should not be imposed upon them. On contest, the issue was decided through impugned Order-in-Original dated 31/01/2006, wherein the Original Authority confirmed the demand and appropriated ₹ 75,984/-. Further the Original Authority impo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd therefore, the information contained therein cannot be construed as authenticated record of the transactions entered into by the appellant. (ii) It totally violative principles of law and fairplay to assume the sales figure reflected in card summary sheets without corroborating the same with the statutory records maintained by the appellant. (iii) Revenue did not check the correctness of the figures mentioned in card summary sheets with the statutory records and did not arrive at correct conclusion. (iv) The Show Cause Notice was issued with assumptions and presumptions. (v) The appellant had requested for cross-examination of the 9 witnesses on whose written statement the Department had placed reliance which were den ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lue of biscuit per gift and number of gifts distributed arrived at ₹ 10,95,18,500/-. Therefore, it was necessary on the part of Revenue to establish that ₹ 10,95,18,500/- clearances were in addition to the clearance of ₹ 43,84,58,438.26/- reflected in the statutory record and said exercise was not carried out and therefore the Show Cause Notice is not sustainable. The ld. Counsel has further relied on the Final Order Nos. 70821-70826/2017 dated 07th August, 20017 passed by this Bench in respect of M/s Varanasi Bottling Company Ltd. Others Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad reported at 2017 (9) T.M.I 443 CESTAT Allahabad. 5. Heard the ld. A. R. for Revenue who has supported the impugned Order-in-Origi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants would have submitted more than 50 monthly RT-12 to the Jurisdiction Range Superintendent. The responsibility of the Jurisdictional Range Superintendent was to assess the goods to Central Excise Duty and issue the assessment memorandum in respect of each RT-12. In those circumstances we find that it is not sustainable to hold that the appellants under reported the figures in the returns filed before the Range Superintendent and, therefore, we find that 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. Further, as argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that Revenue could n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
