9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ucted further investigations. The investigations prima facie revealed production and clearance of yarn in Cross Reel form in the guise of Plain Reel Hank Yarn. Yarn in cross reel was dutiable whereas Plain Reel Hank Yarn does not suffer any duty. Hence the case of the Revenue is that the appellants produced dutiable goods and removed them as goods not liable to duty. The statements of Shri A.S. Kotrappa, Managing Director of the appellant unit and Shri S. Manivasagam, Factory Manager were taken. The statements were inculpatory. However, the statements were immediately retracted on the ground that they were taken under duress. Some private records were seized. The private record showed production of yarn with certain markings like 'SPL' etc. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt the allegation of removal of cross reel hank yarn by misdeclaring the same as plain reel hank yarn and claiming exemption from demand of duty. (iii) The burden of proof that appellants had misdeclared the yarn and cleared them without payment of duty is on the Revenue. Revenue has not discharged its burden. (iv) Shri Manivasagam in his statement has explained that the words 'Specials, SPL and S' are one and the same. They are nothing but cotton yarn manufactured by modifying various machinery parameters. The term 'SPL' cannot be presumed to denote cross reel hank yarn. (v) The show cause notice proceeds on the presumption that the entire spinning production as shown in the Management of Report and daily report we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been entered as 'SPL' in private records. Apart from the seizure on 27-7-2000 there is no other evidence. The Tribunal in the case of CCE, Jaipur v. Rose Metal (Pvt.) Ltd. [2001 (133) E.L.T. 217 (Del.)] has held that non-accountal of goods in RG 1 does not ipso facto indicate intention on the part of the assessee to evade payment of duty and therefore, the goods were not liable to confiscation. (ix) It was further submitted that in view of the above grounds penalties imposed on the appellants unit and also on other two persons are not sustainable. 3. Shri L. Narasimha Murthy learned SDR urged that there is ample evidence to show that the appellants cleared cross reel hank yarn in the guise of plain reel hank yarn and thereby ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
