Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 649 - CESTAT CHANDIGARHClandestine removal - readymade garments - demand based on assumptions and presumptions - demand on the basis of outward register maintained by uneducated contractual employees employed by security contractor - Held that:- There is no dispute regarding value of the clearances effected by Respondent Assessee, Octave Apparels, and the only dispute is regarding bifurcation of these clearances into knitted garments and non-knitted garments. The Department in the Show Cause Notice quantified assessable value of dutiable goods i.e. non knitted garments at 1,92,83,241/- involving Central Excise duty amounting to ₹ 25,86,133/- whereas Respondents contended total clearance of dutiable goods was below the SSI limit. Department had all the details of goods cleared from the Respondent’s premises viz name of buyer, quantity of items sold, mode of transportation and there was nothing to record to show that any investigation was made form the buyers of the goods or the transporters to substantiate the allegation of clandestine removal. The Commissioner further observed that the Department / Adjudicating Authority without causing any investigation from the buyers/transporters to verify the entries made in the said register to ascertain Respondent’s contentions that the register cannot be relied as the same contained the entries in respect of cancelled gate passes against which no sales were effected, returned goods and trade samples held that the Department has failed to prove its case. There is no dispute that the gatekeepers / security staff were contractual persons employed by security contractor. The register maintained by them was not under the instructions of the Respondent assessee and the said register was not supervised and/or scrutinized by the Respondent assessee. Thus, there is nothing wrong in the Commissioner’s observation that confirmation of demand relying on those registers was incorrect. The Revenue’s contention on this count also is unimpressive and merits rejection. There is no allegation that the Respondent cleared any material without raising invoices but only charge is that the goods cleared as knitted garments or fabric were in fact non-knitted garments and that Respondents wrongly claimed some entries to be those related to return of goods or clearance of samples - Without any investigation from buyers of the goods or transporters to conclusively ascertain that goods were knitted or non-knitted and to verify the veracity of the Respondent’s claim in respect of return of goods / clearance of sample confirmation of demand on the basis of outward register that too not maintained by the Respondent’s office but by the Security personnel engaged by security contractors cannot be sustained. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|