9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 521X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith the appellants - Apparently or admittedly, there is no raid conducted in the premises of the appellant nor any documents got recovered from their premises. It is also evident on record that appellants were not given any opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Director of M/s. PIL. These facts are sufficient for us to arrive at a firm opinion that the documents recovered from a third premises were never got corroborated, hence can not be lead into evidence at least for proving the alleged guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubts. The authorities have wrongly held lack of evidence on the part of the appellant - the burden to prove the allegations of clandestine removal was very much upon the Department - demand do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period 2010-11 and 199.9 MT of MS Ingots during the period 2011-12. Resultantly, show cause notice dated 26th February, 2016 was served upon the appellants alleging that total 470.50 MT of MS Ingots has been cleared by them to M/s. PIL for the period 2010-11 and 2011-12 without payment of duty. The demand of the said show cause notice has been confirmed by the authorities below. 4. We have heard Mr. Bipin Garg, ld. Advocate and Mr. K. Podar and Mr.H.C. Saini, ld. DRs. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that it is Departments own case that they have conducted raid in the premises of M/s. PIL and no raid was ever conducted in the premises of the appellant not even the statement of Mr. Rakesh Jalan was recorded at that time. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order under challenge to be confirmed. 7. After hearing both the parties, we are of the following opinion : 7.1 In the present case, the allegations of clandestine removal of the raw-material as well as of the finished goods have been levelled against the appellants. There is a plethora of judgments to hold that to stand upon the charges as that of clandestine removal, there has to be some clinching evidence and the demand cannot be confirmed based on presumptions and assumptions. The Hon ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Continental Cement Co. vs. Union of India 2014 (309) ELT 411 (All.) has held that the charge of clandestine removal is a serious charge, which is required to be proved by the Revenue by tangible and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Revenue to impress upon the evidentiary value of the said sole statement but as is apparent and discussed above that the Revenue has discharged its duty of proper investigation half-heartedly without obtaining any relevant corroboration to what was recovered by them from somebody else s premises. We opine that Revenue has failed to establish its case of alleged clandestine removal against the appellants beyond reasonable doubts. Except showing some shortage of stock, that too, on the basis of recovery of some loose papers is not sufficient to prove the alleged clandestine removal for which not only the parties concerned but the independent witnesses were also mandatorily to be examined. 10. The procedure prescribed in Section 9 D sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
