9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 919X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect of material rejected by their buyers which was brought back into the factory. The entire issue before us is if the said goods were disposed of in terms of Rule 16 or not. The appellants have claimed that they were processing the return material and sending back approx 85% of the goods on payment of duty. The appellants have produced some computerised statement in respect of their claim which has been made subsequently. When the case was detected by the revenue they were not maintaining any such record. The statement recorded when the case was booked by revenue indicate that they were not reprocessing the goods as the same were not in repairable condition. The said goods were being cut and scrapped. In this regard, revenue has relied on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... easons recorded in the said statement. He admitted that no records regarding such rejected goods are maintained. He also admitted that he prepared the statement based on clearances shown in invoices. He stated that he had prepared the statement by selecting the invoice of clearance of the same part description/part clearance as appearing in the document of rejected goods received by them. Later on statement of Biravu Navin Rai was recorded on 24.06.2004 where he stated that the statement was prepared based on his knowledge and memory. All his dictation was not based on any records. He admitted that the statement was prepared by taking into account the data on which the rejected goods were received and the clearance made of similar goods in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey have confirmed the daily production report does not include repair or rejected goods. 6. We have gone through the rival submission. We find that the appellants were receiving goods rejected by their buyer and they were availing credit. The appellants have not maintained any record to show that the goods were processed and cleared on payment of duty after repairs. After the case was booked, the appellants have created a table on the basis of the memory as dictated by the CEO. The same cannot be admitted as any evidence. We also find that the CEO has stated that what needs to be done on the goods is decided by Ajith Kumar T.V. Nair, Bhojraj Shetty and Sudarshan Raj. In his statement Ajith Kumar T.V. Nair stated that the goods received ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
