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 929 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine removal - supply of yarn to job workers for getting the fabric manufactured - it was found that some of the job workers and buyers were not traceable or existing or the sub job workers stated that they did not undertake the job work - HELD THAT:- Only on the ground that some job workers could not be found or that some of them refused to have done job work, it cannot be concluded that no activity of job work manufacturing of fabrics was undertaken. The transporter did not show as to where else their vehicles were deployed. Moreover the statement of few transporters that they did not transport the fabric cannot be a ground to hold that no fabric was manufactured as the main job workers have accepted the manufacture of fabric on job work. Even the clearance/ sale of fabric and duty payment thereupon is not under dispute - There are no evidences that job work charges paid by the Appellant to the job workers flowed back to them. Even if some of the buyers of the fabrics could not be found, it cannot lead to the conclusion that the Appellant did not sell the fabrics to such parties. It cannot be said that the Appellant did not get manufactured the fabrics and instead diverted the yarn in the market. No single evidence has been adduced by the Revenue to show that the Appellant had cleared yarn from their factory for sale as such and thereby evaded central excise duty. Not a single buyer of yarn has been identified by the Revenue nor there are any statements of the employee, authorized signatory or the director of the Company that the Appellant had cleared any yarn clandestinely and it is coupled with the fact that no consideration has shown to have been received by the Appellant. There are no evidences of transportation of yarn from the Appellant’s factory or its diversion. It is a settled law that the allegation of clandestine removal should be based upon clinching evidences whereas in the present case, not a single evidence of clearance and sale of Yarn by way of any evidence in the form of clearance of yarn, identification of buyers, receipt of consideration and any single paper supporting the allegation of the revenue has been found. The revenue could not produce any evidence of removal and sale of POY and hence the demand on alleged removal of same does not sustain - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|