Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2012 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (6) TMI 729 - CESTAT NEW DELHIDuty demand - Invocation of extended period of limitation - Whether or not the appellant has manufactured and cleared the disputed caps and bags under the brand name Reebok and Nike to M/s. Sierra Industrial Enterprises (P) Ltd. and M/s. Reebok India Ltd - Held that:- If the appellant was a trader he could easily have produced in evidence the person from whom he procured these bags and caps. The appellant, however, has failed to produce any evidence to prove his claim that he was a trader only. From the record it is evident that the appellant was evasive and non-cooperative during the adjudication proceedings. He did even produce any evidence to substantiate his claim before the appellate authority. Not only this the appellant did not even produce his account books as also the supply contract with M/s. Sierra Industrial Enterprises (P) Ltd. and M/s. Reebok India Ltd. which could has thrown light on the issue and instead took a plea that his account books have been lost regarding which a FIR was lodged with the police. From this it is evident, that FIR was lodged on an afterthought to justify, non-production of account books which would have brought true facts to light. Thus much importance cannot be attached to the FIR. From the above it is evident that the appellant has failed to adduce evidence, within his knowledge and control, to support his claim. Since, the appellant failed to lead the best evidence, in our considered view the Adjudicating Authority as also the Appellate Authority were right in drawing an adverse inference that he was the manufacturer of the caps and bags. Thus, the impugned order cannot be faulted - appellant did not get himself registered with the excise department as a manufacturer, therefore, the department could not have any way to know about the removal of excisable goods by the appellant without the payment of excise duty. Thus, in our view this is a clear case of deliberate concealment and suppression of fact on the part of the appellant as such the department was well within its rights to invoke extended period of limitation - Decided against assessee.
|