Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (2) TMI 92 - CESTAT CHENNAIClandestine removal - stable bleaching powder - appellant's claim that because sole selling agent recorded 77,300 kgs., in his record that shall not ipsofacto make the appellant liable to excise duty - Held that: - learned adjudicating authority has made his finding not on the sole consideration of entry available in the books of account of the sole selling agent but he has established the demand in relation to 77,300 kgs. of the goods when he found that there was drawal of cash from Catholic Syrian Bank by the buyer to make payment to the appellant herein on account of unaccounted sale of above goods which remained unrebutted - Added to this, circumstantial evidence show that the appellant has not dealt with goods with any other buyer. Therefore the allegation cannot be said to have been made on vaccume - demand of duty confirmed. Valuation of waste - appellant claim that merely because this figure appeared in the balance sheet, without proving clandestine removal, department cannot make allegation of such removal for levy of duty - Held that: - Appellant did not rebut generation of 83% finished goods from the input used. It was all along been disclosing that there was generation of sludge in the course of manufacture. But when physical verification was conducted, there was no sludge found in the premises of the plant. Therefore such huge value of waste which is valued by appellant shall not go unaccounted, if that has economic value. Basic common sense leads to hold that bleaching powder was sold in the guise of waste and there was clandestine removal of the same causing detriment to the interest of Revenue which resulted in demand of duty of ₹ 3,52,809/- - demand of duty confirmed. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|