2018 (11) TMI 521

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , there is no evidence of manufacture produced by Revenue for leveling of charges of manufacture and duty liability. It is only because after lapse of time such person could not be produced, the said duty was confirmed. The burden of proof was on Revenue to establish that said goods were manufactured by the appellant and such burden was not discharged by Revenue. Appeal allowed - decided in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sel for manufacturer-appellants and other appellants on whom personal penalties were imposed and Shri Rajeev Ranjan, learned Additional Commissioner, representing Revenue, we note that initially a demand of ₹ 10.47 crores (Approx) was raised against manufacturer appellant M/s Rathi Udyog Ltd. The said demand was adjudicated through impugned order wherein the learned Original Authority has dr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of account as trading and also included in their annual final statements. He also submitted that all the traders from whom the manufacturer-appellant purchased the goods were registered with state Sales Tax Department and they regularly filed their returns. He has further submitted that during investigation Revenue contacted various transporters who transported the goods from the premises of trade .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hat demand. He has submitted that after many years of trading activities and transportation some of the transporters and traders could not be traced and produced and therefore, he has submitted that since because of the time lapse the persons could not be produced and the evidence that was accepted in respect of the goods which involved demand of around ₹ 9.97 crores same evidence is applica .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s except Appeal No. E/1054/2010. 5. In respect of Appeal No. E/1054/2010, we find that Revenue has reproduced the contentions in the show cause notice as the ground of appeal and did not rebut the findings of the Original Authority. Revenue also could not state any reasons as to why the case law in the case of M/s Mittal Steel Ltd. was not applicable in the present case. We, therefore, reject t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X