Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1519 - CESTAT KOLKATAClandestine manufacture and removal - Biscuits - absence of tangible evidences - Revenue was of the opinion that the Appellant had used 3,265 bags of unaccounted sugar, of which 875 bags had been seized and subsequently provisionally released, in the clandestine manufacture and sale of biscuits - HELD THAT:- It is a settled law that the charge of clandestine removal is a serious one and has to be proved with the help of tangible evidence. In the instant case, there is a want of evidence with respect to the adverse findings against the Appellant that it utilized unaccounted stock of old sugar towards clandestine manufacture of biscuits. Such findings are neither supported by material proving unaccounted procurement of maida, ammonia, salt, flavours etc. nor flowback of funds in the Appellant’s accounts. The purported buyers of such clandestinely cleared biscuits remained unidentified. Further, the Impugned Order has not dealt with the infrastructural incapability of the Appellant to manufacture such huge quantities of biscuits. We cannot appreciate the inconclusive investigations conducted by the Department or the impugned findings of the learned Commissioner suggesting that the charge of clandestine removal had been established. To take one instance – the appellant had consistently maintained that it had possessed sufficient kadahis, chulahs, trays etc. required for mishri production and that these were minor value equipments which did not require much capital investment. Yet, no attempt was made by the Department to disprove such claims. A bald statement that kadahis, chulahs, trays etc. were not equipments for biscuits manufacture and that the appellant had failed to show records for purchase of the same cannot be countenanced - the finding in the impugned Order that the Appellant did not purchase Parel-G biscuits from M/s Maruti Foods has not been substantiated. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|