9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 928X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent evidences or at least evidences to the extent which inspires confidence in the Revenue’s allegations of clandestine removal. Undervaluation - Held that:- The onus to prove is on the Revenue, who is alleging to the contrary. The said allegations were upheld on the basis of mere assumption and presumption. Further the appellants have also claimed the benefit of small scale exemption notification which the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that though the clearances are well within the prescribed limit but the appellant have failed to give progressive value of clearances on various dates when different effective rates have to be applied for working out the duty liabilities. Having held that there is no evidence of either clandesti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the statutory records were found to be missing from the statutory records. 3. On further investigation, statement of their Director Shri M.P. Roy was recorded as also the statement of some of the buyers which were inculpatory in nature. Based upon the same, Revenue initiated proceedings for confirmation of demand of duty to the extent of ₹ 2,70,279/- on the allegation of clandestine removal. Further the notice also proposed to confirm the demand of ₹ 77,549/- on the basis of undervaluation of their product for the period 96-97, 97-98 and 98-99. The said proceedings culminated into an impugned order passed by the Authorities below. 4. After hearing both the sides, we find that the allegations of clandestine removal of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dences or at least evidences to the extent which inspires confidence in the Revenue s allegations of clandestine removal. In the present case there being none, we are of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable. 6. Similarly as regards undervaluation, the appellants have contended that some of the parts of the boilers were bought out items/spare parts supplied by their customers and as such demand in respect of the same is not sustainable. The Lower Authorities have observed that the appellants have not established the above defence by production of any evidences. We find that the onus to prove is on the Revenue, who is alleging to the contrary. The said allegations were upheld on the basis of mere assumption and presumption. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
