9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant No.1 that it had maintained the job work register and the daily stock account, reflecting the transaction particulars, were not considered by the adjudicating authority inasmuch as no such findings were recorded by him in the impugned order. In the reply to show cause notice dated 03.04.2002, the appellant no.1 had submitted the evidences of exports with statutory documents and the remittances received by it towards exportation of goods. The department had not adduced any material evidence to show purchase of excess raw material, manufacture of alleged final product, electricity consumption and other evidences etc. to demonstrate that the appellant had in fact, clandestinely manufactured and cleared the final product out of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise department. The intelligence report of department had confirmed that clandestine removal of goods had resulted in evasion of Central Excise duty and that the SSI exemption limit was exceeded on adding the value of such clearances to the turnover declared to the department. 1.2 On the basis of intelligence, the officers of Central Excise department visited the factory of appellant No.1 and the premises of M/s Braco Sales Corporation. During the course of investigation, the department observed that the stock of finished goods available in the factory premises was less than the stock position reflected in the statutory RG-1 register. Further, the department also recovered the private records maintained at both the above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clandestine manner and in contravention of the provisions of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. (c) The private registers/documents etc. maintained by the appellant proved the fact that the goods were clandestinely removed without payment of central excise duty. The appellant s contention that the bills are not sales invoices was not accepted by the department. (d) The appellant s contention that the value of exports made during the relevant period was not accepted in the adjudication order on the ground that the annexure to the SCN did not consider the export clearances for computation of the duty liability. (e) The adjudicating authority also recorded further observations in support of confirm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... solely based on the private records cannot be sustained for confirmation of the adjudged demands. In this context, the learned Advocate has relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Balajee Structural Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur-2016 (341) ELT 457 (Tri.-Del.) and CCE, Raipur Vs. S.K. Sarawagi Co. Pvt. Ltd.-2018 (12) GSTL 42 (Tri.-Del.) to state that in absence of corroborative evidence of procurement of raw material, use of electricity, flow back of transaction amount etc., the charges of clandestine removal cannot be leveled solely based upon the private records. 3. On the other hand, the learned AR appearing for the Revenue reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order and further submitted that upo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of actual export and value of alleged clandestine removal of goods. The information furnished by the appellants regarding the waste and scrap sent for job work for recycling and the duty paid goods supplied to BEST were also not properly addressed in the impugned order. The department had not adduced any material evidence to show purchase of excess raw material, manufacture of alleged final product, electricity consumption and other evidences etc. to demonstrate that the appellant had in fact, clandestinely manufactured and cleared the final product out of the factory premises, without payment of central excise duty. Thus, in absence of proper substantiation of the allegation of clandestine removal, the charges leveled against the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
