2018 (3) TMI 617

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ecord - Held that: - the clandestine removal allegations cannot be upheld on comparison of figures appearing in balance sheet and ER-1 returns inasmuch as in the present appeal such comparison is the only reason for upholding the charges of clandestine removal, I find no valid ground for upholding the impugned order - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member ( .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the appellant to prove their claim by adducing positive and tangible evidence, which they failed to produce in the instant case. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order so far as the confirmation of demand of duty of ₹ 36,49,762/- along with interest and imposition of penalty of equivalent amount are concerned and therefore I uphold the same. Held accordingly." 3. In spite of o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ions of the Tribunal that the entries made in the balance sheet, cannot be adopted for upholding the charges of clandestine removal. Reference can be made to the following decisions: (i) CCE, Kolkata-IV Vs. RS Ispat Pvt. Ltd. - 2017 (5) TMI 753-CESTAT-KOLKATA. (ii) M/s Suma Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Thane-I - 2016 (9) TMI 34-CESTAT-MUMBAI. (iii) Raam Tyres Ltd. Vs. CCE, Visakhapatnam .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X