9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (1) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 1. The uncorroborated initial statement of J.K. Gupta could not be used as substantive piece of evidence to charge the company appellant No. 1 with clandestine manufacture and removal of the goods, especially when he himself later on had denied from receipt of the goods and no goods had been found from his premises. The penalty under Rule 209A, against M/s. Carton India has already been set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 22-12-2003 by holding that the charge of receiving goods from the company appellant No. 1 without payment of duty did not stand proved. It is well settled that the charge of clandestine removal of the goods by a manufacturer cannot be based on assumptions and presumptions. This charge has to be prove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allegations and to prove the actual removal of the goods by the company appellant No. 1 under these packing slips and GRs to appellants Nos. 3-4. The duty demand has been wrongly confirmed by raising assumptions and presumptions. The impugned order according to the Counsel, deserves to be set aside against all the appellants. 4. On the other hand, the learned JDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order. 5. I have heard both the sides. The perusal of the file shows that the company appellant No. 1 is engaged in the manufacture of kraft paper and 14 packing slips and 4 GRs were seized by the Central Excise officers who visited their factory premises on 6-3-97. The company is alleged to had supplied goods of two slips to M/s. Ana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Partner of M/s. Anant Corrugators (appellant No. 3) and Rajeev Sharma Partner of M/s. Carton India (not appellant in this appeal). It is only later on that J.K. Gupta (appellant No. 4) was served with a show cause notice alleging receipt of the goods from the company appellant No. 1 without payment of duty on the basis of disputed packing slips and he in his reply to the show cause notice denied the allegations. 6. No evidence has been brought on record to prove the extra receipt of the raw material, consumption of electricity and employment of labour by the company appellant No. 1 for manufacturing the goods and clearing the same in a clandestine manner. No shortage or excess of the inputs or finished goods was detected in their factory pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
