9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d central excise duty. On the basis of the above investigation, a show cause notice was issued considering the entire supplies of parts under central excise invoice are not towards the parts, but for the final product which is liable to duty. The demand of excise duty amounting to Rs. 23,09,251/- was proposed. The adjudicating authority while adjudicating the show cause notice, confirmed the entir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 vs. CC, Cochin 1988 (33) ELT 433 (Tri.); (ii) Ja ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly upheld the demand only to the extent of 35% of the total demand confirmed by the adjudicating authority. In absence of any evidence, the demand of duty in respect of 100% parts shown to have dispatched to M/s. Om Industries cannot be treated as clearance of finished goods. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. I fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce 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 (Appeals) reduced the demand. I find that since the department had no evidence except the 10 invoices and the partner of the respondent firm has given the statement as discussed above, there is no reason to demand t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
