9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E/803/10 - A/85450/2018 - Dated:- 5-3-2018 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Shri S.V. Nair, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for appellant Shri Jayesh Doshi, Chartered Accountant, for respondent ORDER The facts of the case are that consequent to a detailed investigation, it was revealed that a modus operandi adopted by the respondent, wherein the respondent is engaged in the manufacture of parts of travel goods such as flaps/divider flaps/folios etc. and cleared to M/s. Om Industries, Uttarakhand, on the strength of central excise invoice and once the goods reached the factory premises of M/s. Om Industries, Haridwar, the original and duplicate copy of invoices were brought back to the respondent s factory and the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dus operandi of the respondent, whatever clearances of parts shown under the invoices, the respondent might have cleared the finished goods. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) is wrong in reducing the demand. 2. Shri S.V. Nair, learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue, reiterates the grounds of appeal. He submits that the documentary evidence i.e. 10 parallel invoices recovered from the respondent clearly indicate that all the clearances made to M/s. Om Industries were finished goods and not parts. He submits that once the modus operandi of the respondent has been exposed, thereafter there is no need of 100% evidence. In support, he placed reliance on the following judgments:- (i) P. Pratap Rao Sait v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the removal of finished goods or some part of finished goods and the remaining parts as such. In this regard, the department could lay their hands only on 10 invoices and there is no other evidence found. The partner of the respondent firm Shri Ajay V. Shete in his statement clearly stated that they have manipulated the invoices in respect of around 35% clearances of the total consignment despatched to M/s. Om Industries, Haridwar and not in all cases. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) relying on the above evidence held that the department has no evidence except the 10 invoices. However, on the basis of the statement admitting 35% clandestine removal against the total consignment of parts as per the invoices, the learned Commissioner (Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
