Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 320 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine removal - raw tobacco - unaccounted quantity of raw tobacco - excesses and shortage of stock - parallel invoices - the demand is mainly based upon the records and statements made by supplier of raw material i.e tobacco which showed that the tobacco was consigned to the Appellant Unit - Cross-examination of persons - Held that:- Though the statements of these persons have been relied upon, but there is no corroborative evidence to show that the said goods reached the factory of the Appellant Unit and were consumed in manufacture of unaccounted finished goods. Only on the basis of records of some of the alleged suppliers and their statements which are of third parties, it cannot be concluded that the goods were consigned to the Appellant Unit. The Appellant had requested for cross examination of the suppliers and persons whose statements were relied upon. Either the said persons did not appear for the cross examination or the persons who appeared for cross examination have resiled from their statements. No statement of driver of any of the vehicle was recorded to ascertain the actual place where the raw material was actually delivered. There is no corroborative evidence of receipt of any unaccounted raw material by the Appellant Unit. Neither there is any evidence of unaccounted production and its removal. Further no evidence of use of other raw material/ packing material, extra labour, payment of unaccounted wages, use of power or any evidence of production is appearing. There is no buyer of such goods nor any evidence of any consideration received by the Appellant Unit against such clearance. Clearances against alleged parallel invoice - Held that:- It is found that during the cross examination of the departmental officer on questioning regarding such parallel invoice, he stated that the copies of invoices were given to him by his seniors. There is no authentic source who has provided the copies of said parallel invoice. One of the party who allegedly received the goods under the cover of two such parallel invoice in his statements refused to have received such goods. The other party in its cross examination also stated that no goods were received by them. Also the revenue could not find any other buyer of goods except the alleged parallel invoice. The search at Appellant Unit could not show excess of finished goods. In such case the allegation of clandestine production/ removal and demand of duty on finished goods does not sustain - the demands against Appellant M/s RKP are not sustainable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|