Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 650 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine removal - undervaluation of finished goods by the appellant sold through M/s JBCPL and M/s MBSC - shortage of finished goods during the stock taking at the factory premises - irregular Cenvat credit on the basis of four supplier of the scrap without accompanying of the goods - no cross-examination allowed - Held that:- The demand of ₹ 40,76,894/- has been confirmed on the basis of certain loose slips/ pages relied upon by the Revenue which were resumed from Shri Raman Bhatia, Director of M/s JBCPL, who was the consignment agent. No reliance can be placed on these loose sheets as the name of the appellant is not mentioned in the said loose sheets. Reliance cannot be placed on the statements of Shri Raman Bhatia without cross examination. M/s JBCPL was selling the identical goods on behalf of the other manufacturer as a dealer. No statements have been recorded from alleged buyer of finished goods, whose name appeared on these loose sheets. Hence, there is no corroboration for the authenticity of loose sheets or averment of Shri Raman Bhatia - also, the adjudicating authority has not followed the procedure as prescribed under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act for placing reliance on the various statements recorded from the various persons, who were either the consignment agent/dealers/supplier of the goods. It is also stated earlier that no reliance can be placed on the third party evidence, without independent corroboration as has been done by the adjudicating authority. CENVAT Credit - Held that:- Although names of the various supplier of these inputs/raw materials were available with the investigators, however, they have not been examined and merely the credit have been denied to the appellant - no statements or any transporter to prove the scrap was loaded from any other premises then supplier of the goods during Alka Creations. Demand in respect of supply made by the appellant to M/s MBSC during the period from Jan. 2011 to October 2011 - case of the Revenue was that there is under valuation to the extent of ₹ 5/- to 10/- for SS flats in respect of sales to M/s MBSC by five years - Held that:- No sufficient corroborative evidence was brought on record to prove this charge by the Revenue. Though, the statements were recorded from Managing Director, he was not questioned about the valuation with regard to clearance to M/s MBSC. This duty demand was solely based on some records seized from the premises of M/s MBSC which showed entries merely and some found during search - The department failed to rebut or controverted the various findings as recorded by ld. Adjudicating authority in the impugned order and therefore same is required to be upheld. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|