9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order of the Commissioner No. CCE/Kol-II/39/2002, dt. 30-8-2002. The appellant is the manufacturer of iron and steel products and railway boggies and wagon components/parts falling under Chapters 73 and 86 respectively. The Commissioner confirmed central excise duty to the tune of Rs. 33,86,592/- (Rupees thirty-three lakhs eighty-six thousand five hundred and ninety-two) and imposed identical ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hout accountal in their statutory records. The adjudicating authority has observed that the goods are tailor-made industrial item and the customers too include Govt. buyers like the various railways Eastern Railways, South-Eastern Railways, Central Railways etc. 2. We have heard Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, ld. Consultant for the appellants and Shri T.K. Kar, ld. SDR for the Revenue. Shri Chattopadh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng which is taken on record. He has submitted that in CCE, Trichirapalli v. Ravi Shankar Industries Ltd.- 2002 (150) E.L.T. 1317 (Tri - Chennai) it has been held by the South Zonal Bench of the Tribunal that "documentary evidence is required to prove the charge of clandestine removal, private note books and registers have no evidentiary value in absence of corroboration". In CCE, Chennai v. M/s. D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tantiated thus demand not sustainable". We find that the appellants'/applicants' final product is exclusively for Govt. of India Enterprises i.e. Railways. Apart from the entries made in the diary which the applicants/appellants have explained as their plan diary, there is no other evidence to reflect upon the clandestine manufacture and removal of the goods. In view of our findings we allow the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
