Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 341 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine removal - yarns - Revenue entertained a view that the said yarn was clandestinely cleared by the appellant to the three units ie., M/s. Gowri Textiles, M/s. Sri selvapathy Textiles and M/s. Arulmathi Tex, who are sister concerns of the present appellant with the same Managing Director Shri S. Rangasamy being a partner in those three units - Held that: - the above view entertained by Revenue may be a cause of doubt against the appellant but cannot by itself, take the shape of evidence so as to confirm the findings of clandestine activities against the assessee. I have also examined the statement of Shri Rangasamy which is merely to the effect that he is not able to show the invoices in respect of the alleged clearances and if the Revenue is of the view that such yarn received by the sizing units has been cleared from their factory, without payment of duty, he is ready to pay the duty. Apart from the fact that confessional statements cannot be adopted solely for arriving at the clandestine removal findings, I find that the said statement of Shri S.Rangasamy cannot be held to be confessional statement, in strict sense, in as much as there is no acceptance of the fact that they were indulging in clandestine activities - Revenue has not examined the scribe of the entries made in the receipt book of the sizing mills, on the basis of which the entire case of the Revenue is made. The findings of the lower authorities are based upon the surmises and conjectures and there is virtually no evidence produced by the Revenue to establish clandestine removal against the assessee. It is also to be noted that during the relevant period the appellant s factory was put to stock taking, by the officers themselves, not once but three times and no discrepancies were found either in the raw materials stock or the final product stock. In such a scenario, the appellants cannot be held to be indulging in clandestine activities and it is for the Revenue to produce the evidence to support its allegations. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|