9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l the documents and records which were placed before the learned Tribunal by the respondents to establish their cases. The learned Tribunal proceeded to deal with the crucial issues of the matter, namely co-relatable purchases and sales; duty paid on purchases; job work; testing at third party premises; demand on sale of materials to private parties and sale of wires, channels, angles etc. and non-existence of alleged four suppliers; physical movement of goods. The learned Tribunal has allowed the respondents appeals on appreciation and re-appreciation of all the documents placed before it which admittedly were voluminous. Appeal dismissed. - HON BLE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM AND HON BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA For the Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sis of certain declarations/representations made to it its customers and without it being shown that the said noticee is a manufacturer within the meaning of section 2 (f) of the Central Excise Act which defines manufacture . The learned Tribunal noted that the show cause notice dated December 24, 2010, which was the first show cause notice, was primarily based on the representation made by the respondent to various power supply corporations stating that it was a manufacturer of the goods supplied by it. 4. The learned Tribunal took note of the statements recorded from the proprietor/directors and noted that the respondent had taken the factual stand that the declarations/representations to the power supply corporations had been made only f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tured by job workers on principal to principal basis and they could not be treated as manufacturer. 7. The learned Tribunal has rightly noted that the enquiry and investigations leading upto issuance of the show cause notices dated December 24, 2010 and March 24, 2011, though gives rise to suspicion against the assessee, were insufficient to justify the confirmation of demands. 8. The learned Tribunal noted the legal position that suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof. Apart from that, the learned Tribunal had analysed the statements recorded from the partners of the respondent firm and found that there was no inconsistency and the department was also not able to bring out any inconsistency. The assessee was able to expla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
