9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of any transportation by the appellants for transporting the alleged quantity of raw-material to M/s.PIL. In absence thereof the documents recovered from M/s.PIL cannot be held against the appellant. It is well settled law that there has to be some concrete evidence which would show clandestine manufacture of goods, as was reiterated by Tribunal, Delhi in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Raipur vs. P.D. Industries Pvt. Ltd. [ 2015 (11) TMI 455 - CESTAT NEW DELHI ]. The order confirming the recovery has no legal basis to sustain - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Mrs. Rachna Gupta, Member (Judicial) For the Appellant : Ms. Jwaria Kainaat, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. K. Poddar, Authorised Repre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the appellant herein. Resultantly, a show cause notice No.6648 dated 26.04.2016 was served upon the appellant proposing the recovery of Central Excise duty of ₹ 5,43,986/- from them alongwith the interest and the penalty on the appellant company and penalty on the Director Shri Chaitanya Garg. The said proposal was initially dropped by the Assistant Commissioner, Raipur vide order No.108/Adj/AC/RD-II/2017 dated 29.03.2018. Against the said Order-in-Original, Department filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), however, Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned Order-in-Appeal allowed the appeals filed by Department. Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred by the assessee before this Tribunal. 3. I have heard Ms. Jwaria Kainaat, ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of M/s.PIL and recovered voluminous incriminating documents sufficiently proving that the appellants have supplied unaccounted raw-material to M/s. PIL. The order under challenge has discussed the clear involvement of the appellant facilitating the clandestine removal of the finished goods to M/s. PIL. There is no infirmity in the order under challenge. Same is, accordingly, prayed to be upheld. 6. After hearing the rival contentions of both the sides, I hold as follows:- Since the sole challenge to the order is its reliance upon third party evidence, it is necessary to check the evidentiary value of the third party evidence. The relevant case law in the case of Bajrangbali Ingots Steel Pvt. Ltd. Suresh Agarwal vs. CCE, Raipur in Appeal N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Service Tax, Raipur vs. P.D. Industries Pvt. Ltd. reported as 2016 (340) ELT 249 (Tri.-Del. ). Earlier also in the case of Continental Cement Company vs. Union of India reported in 2014 (309) ELT 411 (All.), Hon ble High Court of Allahabad has held:- 12. Further, unless there is clinching evidence of the nature of purchase of raw materials, use of electricity, sale of final products, clandestine removals, the mode and flow back of funds, demands cannot be confirmed solely on the basis of presumptions and assumptions. Clandestine removal is a serious charge against the manufacturer, which is required to be discharged by the Revenue by production of sufficient and tangible evidence. On careful examination, it is found that with regard to alle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
