Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 871 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine removal - it was alleged that appellant have received the inputs manufactured by M/s Lauls Limited without any cover of invoice of manufacturer and without payment of duty - various statements recorded during the course of investigation and on the basis of the conclusion drawn by the DGCEI that M/s Lauls Limited is manufacturing M.S. Ingots and clearing the same without payment of duty - HELD THAT:- Revenue has failed to bring any corroborative evidence on record except the statement recorded during the course of investigation. Merely admission by way of statement without corroborative evidence cannot result to prove the allegation of clandestine removal of goods - on the said basis demand cannot be confirmed. As held by this Tribunal in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-I, M/S KUBER TOBACCO INDIA LTD, SHRI DHANPAT SINGHEE, DIRECTOR, SHRI CHATAR SINGH BAID, SHRI VIKAS MALU VERSUS M/S KUBER TOBACCO INDIA LTD, COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-I [2016 (4) TMI 622 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] wherein it has been held that the statement recorded during the course of investigation is to be testified by the adjudicating authority in terms of Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1994 and thereafter same is allowed to be cross examined to the assessee. But none of the said act has been done by the adjudicating authority in this case. The charge clandestine clearance has not been established by the Revenue with tangible evidence - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|