9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 1002X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... achine/equipments or not? No enquiry was made with the transporters to ascertain the truth. Moreover, the goods lying in their factory premises were seized by the Revenue for which respondent claims that these goods pertains to the seized invoices. Further, as invoices were seized by the appellants and has not been released to the respondent, therefore, the respondent was compelled to issue fresh invoices for clearance of the seized goods on payment of duty. In that circumstances, it is the duty of the appellant to ascertain whether on these 559 invoices which have been seized whether the said goods have been cleared from the factory of the respondent or not, which the appellant failed to do so. As the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) passed the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to March 2010, the respondent issued 559 invoices for clearance of machines/equipments to the customers which could not be cleared due to unavailability of transport or at the request of the customers to hold the goods for some time. But the respondent paid the excise duty thereon in February 2010 and March 2010. An investigation was conducted on 15.04.2010 with respect to such goods where original copies of 559 invoices were seized. On 24.05.2010 the respondent intimated that the differential duty has been paid as duty has been increased from 8 to 10% w.e.f. 20.06.2010 on the said invoices on 04.06.2010. The respondent made a request to release the seized invoices so that the machines/equipments could have been cleared. As the said invoice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Rules made thereunder authorizes the Commissioner(Appeals) to give his observation and findings on the issue in a case, which has been dealt with and adjudicated by the Commissioner either directly or in parallel proceedings which has been devised to challenge the findings of the Commissioner. He further submitted that the Commissioner(Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that from the scrutiny of ER-1 as submitted for the month of January, February March 2010, it is revealed that no extra amount of excise duty have been self assessed and paid appropriately by the assessee for the clearances shown in the respective months. It is also revealed that none of invoices issued have been cancelled for which clearances of Excisable goods have b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uments evidences that the respondent was bona fide having cleared the same goods which was ought to be cleared by the respondent during July 2010 to December 2010 and same were cleared later on. In that circumstances, the appeal filed by the Revenue is to be dismissed. 5. Heard the parties, considered the submissions. 6. In this case, the facts are not in dispute that the appellant had issued 559 invoices during the period January 2010 to March 2010 for clearance of machines and equipments thereof. Revenue has not made any enquiry with the customers to substantiate their case that against these invoices the customers have received the machine/equipments or not? No enquiry was made with the transporters to ascertain the truth. Moreover, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were gone through by him and he claimed that his company ha snot transported impugned goods against those invoices. He further sworn that the heavy machinery were finally transported in respect of the invoices which were made during July, 2010 to Dec, 2010. I also find that M/s. Diesel Locomotive Works Varanasi a buyer vide his letter dated 09.10.12 has categorically confirmed that the goods in question i.e. Engine Coupling, Engine Block an dFloor Frame were received by them only once, i.e. April, 2010 onwards. There are similar letters from the purpoted buyers as shown in the 559 seized invoices who claim on the same lines. The appellant also produced detailed chart correlating the new invoices and also invoices which shows that the name ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earing the reason of not entering the goods in RG-1 Register for which the contention was that these goods are heavy machinery and it is a practice that at the time of clearances these goods are entered in RG-1 Register. Be that it may so, this alone can not be a ground of the goods being unaccounted for clandestine clearances when there are other supporting documents to the contrary. These documents were before Learned Adjudicator also. 8. The appellant also produced Order-in-Original No.27/Commr./2012 dated 26.07.12 whereunder it was ordered as (i) Goods valued at Rs.1,83,37,32,793 covered under the 559 invoices seized by the Central Excise officer on 25.06.2010 hereby confiscated under Rule 25 (1)(b)(d) of the Central Excise Rules . It w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
