TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 340X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such huge goods to various parties. Revenue should have investigated matter thoroughly to bring out evidence and purchase of the unaccounted cement. Same is the case as for as the unaccounted HDPE bags without any corroborative evidence of purchase of raw materials, recovery of sale proceeds, disposal of unaccounted goods, higher consumption of electricity etc. Clandestine removal cannot be proved merely on the basis of the register seized and the statement of certain individuals. The appellant makes a point that what is reflected in the register seized is not different from the production figures reflected in the RG I register. Since Revenue's investigation has not been very thorough, we have no other option but to give the benefit of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Central Excise Rule 1944. All the appellants have strongly challenged the findings of adjudicating authority. 3. Shri M.S. Rajappa learned consultant appeared for the appellants and Shri L. Narasimha Murthy learned SDR for the Revenue. The learned consultant urged the following points. (1) The entire case of clandestine removal hinges on a register maintained by Shri Hargopalacharya Assistant Manager (quality control). The case of the revenue is that the particulars in the above said register representing the clandestine clearance over and above the figures reflected in the statutory RGI registers. (2) Since there was no co-relation between the figures mentioned in the above said register and the RGI register, the adjudicating authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 123) E.L.T. 1148 (T) - Bearing Manufacturing Company v. CCE, Vadodara. (4) 1994 (71) E.L.T. 980 (T) - K. Harinath Gupta v. CCE, Hyderabad. (5) 2004 (168) E.L.T. 506 (Tri.-Del.) - CCE, Raipur v. C.M. Re-Rollers Fabricators. (6) 2004 (168) E.L.T. 454 (Tri.-Del.) - CCE, Jallandhar v. Harcharan Brothers. (7) 2004 (175) E.L.T. 182 (T) = 2004 (62) RLT 891 (CESTAT-Mum.) - Ghodavat Pan Masala Products Ltd. Ors v. CCE, Pune. (8) 1995 (76) E.L.T. 197 (Tri.) - Madhu Foods Products Ltd. Ors v. CCE, Pune. (9) 2003 (159) E.L.T. 1162 (Tri.-Mum.) - Kirtibhai Maganbhai Patel v. CCE, Nagpur. (10) 2003 (160) E.L.T. 213 (Tri.-Del.) - Parshuram Cement Ltd. v. CCE, Lucknow. (5) On going through the Private record, it is seen that the cement mill of the company c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mption required for such huge production. There is absolutely no corroborative evidence for the clearance of such huge goods to various parties. Revenue should have investigated matter thoroughly to bring out evidence and purchase of the unaccounted cement. Same is the case as for as the unaccounted HDPE bags without any corroborative evidence of purchase of raw materials, recovery of sale proceeds, disposal of unaccounted goods, higher consumption of electricity etc. Clandestine removal cannot be proved merely on the basis of the register seized and the statement of certain individuals. The appellant makes a point that what is reflected in the register seized is not different from the production figures reflected in the RG I register. Sinc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
