Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 892 - CESTAT CHANDIGARHClandestine removal - job-work - penalty - The Revenue's case is that after job work, the goods have been received back in the factory of the appellant and further process has been carried out thereon - The case of the appellant is that after carrying out the further process, these finished goods were entered in RG-I register - Held that: - The Revenue has not proved that the goods received from the job worker and after further process were not entered in RG-I register. If the Revenue would have proved that all the goods received from the job worker back and after process the same has been cleared without payment of duty. In that case, there shall be a case of open and shut but in this case only duty involved of ₹ 42243/- has been established that the appellant had cleared the said goods on the basis of challans of the job worker and after processing without any invoices, the demand of ₹ 42,243/- alongwith interest is confirmed and penalty equal to that is also imposed - demand of ₹ 42,243/- is confirmed along with interest and equivalent amount of penalty is also imposed. For the remaining demand, it shows that the investigation has done half heartedly without bringing concrete evidence of clandestine removal of goods. Therefore, the demand is not sustainable. With regard to the statement recorded from M/s Chawla Auto Agency, although M/s Chawla Auto Agency has admitted that they have received the goods without cover of invoice but the appellant has never admitted that fact, moreover, while issuing show cause notice M/s Chawla Auto Agency was not made party to the proceedings to impose penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, which shows that the evidence collected from M/s Chawla Auto Agency are not fair evidence to allege clandestine removal of the goods by the appellant to M/s Chawala Auto Agency without cover of invoices, therefore, the said demand is not sustainable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|