TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oduced by the assessee. There is no other evidence on record showing that the appellants have cleared the said goods clandestinely. The entire case of the Revenue is based only on inferences involving unwarranted assumptions and cannot be upheld. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. : E/11/2006/ SM - ORDER No. A/10942/2014 - Dated:- 25-4-2014 - Mr. H.K. Thakur, J. For the Appellant : Shri Deven Parikh (Adv.) For the Respondent : Shri G P Thomas (AR) JUDGEMENT 1. Appeal No. E/ 11/ 2006 is directed against Order-in-Original No. 08/ VDR-II/ MP/ 2005 dated 29.09.2005, passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise Customs, Vadodara-II. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged, int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der in Original to show that the Arjocast paper was declared in the declaration under Rule 57G as an input for the manufacture of Floor Coverings of Chapter 39. (ii) That the Revenue has raised the demand on clandestine removals merely on theoretical basis without appreciating the appellants submissions that the entire quantities of input papers have been used in the manufacture of both type of goods falling under Chapter No. 39 as well as those falling under Chapter No. 48. He argued that the charge of clandestine removal is a very serious charge and the revenue was under obligation to adduce sufficient positive tangible evidence to prove the same. In this context, he relied upon the following case laws: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... falling under Chapter 39 as well as those falling under Chapter 48. The appellant has satisfactorily explained through the chart at page 66 of the appeal papers that all inputs whether Arjocast paper or Arjobond paper or Asbestos paper have been used in the manufacture of goods falling under Chapter 39 as well as falling under Chapter 48. At the first page of the appellants letter dated 12.03.1988, the appellant had categorically declared that Arjocast paper was being used by them both in the manufacture of Floor Coverings of Chapter 39 as well as those of Chapter 48. Similarly, as evident from Para 5 of the impugned Order-in-Original, the appellant had filed declaration under erstwhile Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules, 1944 to the effect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e cannot confirm demand of duty in respect of goods not produced by the assessee. There is no other evidence on record showing that the appellants have cleared the said goods clandestinely. The entire case of the Revenue is based only on inferences involving unwarranted assumptions and cannot be upheld. (b) Chandan Tobacco Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Vapi (supra) wherein the CESTAT held: 9. We find that the entire basis for raising and confirming the demand against the appellant is the declaration made by them in terms of Boards circular. We have gone through the said circular which requires the manufacturer of Gutkha, Pan Masala, Tobacco etc. to give intimation about the number of machines installed in their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
