9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1263X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quantum of inputs and other materials by treating the same as clandestinely removed - it is very hard to understand that if the stock of the goods was not available in the factory, as alleged by the Revenue, how could the appellant sell the same in the year 2015, on payment of duty, which stands accepted by the Revenue - the findings of the lower authorities as self-contradictory and hence not sustainable. Apart from making a bald allegation of removal of the said goods in a clandestine manner, Revenue has not produced any evidence to that effect. Neither the buyers nor the transporters stand identified by the Revenue. Further there is no proof of receipt of consideration against the said removals. Admittedly when the appellant has refle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the time of termination of lease. However, in the year 2015, the appellant showed the sale of the said products as waste and scrap, inasmuch as the same were rusted within the period of last three years. The said sale was described as rusted MS ingots and was made on payment of duty of ₹ 5,76,361/- 3. Subsequently proceedings were initiated against the appellant by way of show cause notice dated 05.06.2015 alleging that as the appellant was not having any stock at the time of giving possession of the factory to M/s.Chandpur Enterprises Ltd., they had removed the said goods reflected in ER-1, in a clandestine manner. Accordingly the duty of Central Excise to the tune of ₹ 7,76,519/- was raised against them. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tands accepted by the Revenue. As such I find the findings of the lower authorities as self-contradictory and hence not sustainable. 7. Apart from above I also find that apart from making a bald allegation of removal of the said goods in a clandestine manner, Revenue has not produced any evidence to that effect. Neither the buyers nor the transporters stand identified by the Revenue. Further there is no proof of receipt of consideration against the said removals. Admittedly when the appellant has reflected their goods in ER-1 returns, they are duty-bound to show the clearance of the same and which clearance stands shown by their in the year 2015 by showing the sale of the rusted ingots. Further Revenue has not made any invest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
