Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 762 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine removal - The main allegation levelled against the appellant is that they cleared cheese/cone yarn in the guise of hank yarn and thus evaded payment of duty - statements of buyers relied upon - Held that:- The procedure contemplated for removal for the purpose of conversion is self contained. The consequence of not adhering to the procedure is laid down in 156 B. The department has no case that any action was taken against appellant for not complying the procedure. To get the yarn converted into hank the appellant dispatches the dutiable cheese yarn without payment of duty under cover of statutory Form AR 3A with permission of concerned Range Officer and the yarn will get re-warehoused with the job worker concerned under the control of the jurisdictional Range Officer who records the fact of such re-warehousing. After conversion, the hank yarn is returned to the appellants who receives them under cover of statutory documents under intimation to the Range Officer in Form D3. Thus the removal for conversion and receipt of converted hank yarn is intimated to, and acknowledged by the department - the department cannot give a go by of such documents by relying on the statement of Range Officer that he was merely endorsing upon the document without physically verifying whether yarn was received by appellants after conversion. The evidences including the ARA-3s and D3s indicate the strong probability that appellant has send yarn for conversion. Another reason for rejection of these documents of conversion is that the vehicle numbers noted there in are fictitious. The Ld.Counsel has pointed out that out of the 400 AR-3As, only 14 numbers have incorrect vehicle number. Out of these, 8 documents were prepared by them. He has submitted that it happened only due to error in noting the vehicle number. We find no reason not to accept this contention of the appellant. Out of 400 AR3-As, when the vehicle numbers mentioned only in 14 documents showed variation or incorrectness. The strong inference that can be made is that it was merely human error. This cannot in our view, be a ground to reject all 400 documents as bogus. The main evidence relied is the statement of buyers of yarn from the appellant. The Partner/director of M/s. Peeyelyes International and Sansons Exports, M/s.JaisarSpintex (P) Limited, M/s. Peeyelcee Tex Exports (P) Limited and M/s. Anitha Traders had stated that they purchased only cone/cheese yarn and that they use only minimum quantity of hank yarn etc. Out of these Sh.A.Chandrasekar, Partner of Anitha Traders has stated in cross examination that they purchased hank yarn from appellant. Surprisingly, although documents recovered from Sh. Muthu Industries (sizing Mill run by and for Peeyelyes International) was heavily used by department for investigation as well as to base the allegations in the SCN, it is seen that no statement was obtained from any person connected with M/s.Muthu Industries. The department has failed to establish that the appellant has not cleared hank yarn. The evidences, such as AR3-As and related documents, alongwith the deposition of job workers made during cross examination strongly indicate that during the disputed period appellant, though did not have reeling machine, was sending cone yarn for conversion into hank yarn and clearing the same without payment of duty. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|