Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (6) TMI 1022 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine manufacture and removal - Held that: - When the appellants made categorical assertion regarding their production capacity, and submitted whatever records in their possession, it is for the Revenue to support the case of possible production in excess of accounted quantity by the appellant. The appellant will not be able to prove non-production, apart from stating that they have no capacity to produce such huge quantity. Power consumption - Held that: - no specific finding was recorded - general observation cannot be considered as analysis of evidence to support the case of clandestine manufacture and clearance. The two lotus note books formed important basis for allegation of clandestine manufacture. It is clear that the author of entries made in the note book was not identified - such basis cannot be relied upon to upheld demand. Quantification of demand - Held that: - it is not clear that what type of co-relation between accounted clearance and the proper records and also how the overall duty liability has been arrived at. No chart or calculation is given in the notice. We also perused photocopies of entries in the note books which were relied upon by the Revenue. It is not clear as to how the entries are co-related to arrive at tangible evidence regarding clandestine manufacture and clearance. On careful consideration of the impugned order and the various submissions made by the appellant, we conclude that the case of the Revenue is not supported by cogent, tangible and credible evidence, to support the allegation of unaccounted clearance. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|