Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2017 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 533 - HC - Central ExciseClandestine removal - Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding a charge of clandestine removal in the absence of any documentary evidence to show acquisition and consumption of unrecorded raw material and manufacture of unaccounted goods? - Held that: - The Tribunal found that the report made by the Court receiver did not support the version of the assessee that processed fabrics taken over by the Court Receiver and sent back to their SMP godown were co-relatable to the bales of processed fabrics initially cleared by the applicant on payment of duty to the Coimbatore dealer and which were taken over by the Court Receiver. The Tribunal had noticed a portion of the Receiver's report which indicates that there were no marking on the goods to indicate under which invoice the goods were received and there was no way to separate the goods received, as the marks on the goods revealed only the manufacturing month and year. It was not possible to separate the goods as per the invoices which were exhibited in the plaint in the said suit. Paragraph 5 of the impugned order of the Tribunal also recorded the fact that the appellant's attempt to establish corelation failed, movement of bales from the factory to Coimbatore on payment of duty is evident from the excise invoices but there was no corresponding document to show that return, bale wise, of the goods from Coimbatore. The Tribunal found that return of duty paid goods from Coimbatore either to the appellants SMP Godown or from factory at Roha had not been established and there were no entries in the factory Inward Register showing return of goods under Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|