Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2006 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (7) TMI 450 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine manufacture and removal - aerated waters - entire case of the Revenue is based upon the standard input output norms - HELD THAT:- It is seen that the entire allegations against the appellant are that there is a shortfall in the production meaning thereby that they have produced less number of bottles than the standard input output norms - the above, cannot be made the basis for confirmation of demand of duty. If there is shortfall in production, Revenue 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. Reliance has been placed on the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of TRIVENI RUBBER AND PLASTICS VERSUS COLLECTOR OF C. EXCISE, COCHIN [1993 (3) TMI 124 - SUPREME COURT]. However, it is found that the issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in that case was all together different and was relatable to the excess production than the ceiling limit, which the Hon’ble Court found, was based upon lot of evidence in the shape of the statements of the various persons and on finding of fact of doctored of accounts. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that in a case where the accounts are found fabricated and untrue, the figures of raw material supplied or the particulars of labour employed may not be available. As already held that there is not even an iota of evidence in the present case, it is found that ratio of the above decision does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.
|