Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2018 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 820 - HC - Central ExciseClandestine removal - validity of evidences - Whether ld. CESTAT, New Delhi has erred in brushing aside the vital evidences in the form of voluntary statements of the Director of the assessee respondent Company which was corroborated by the reports of the test samples and in turn setting aside the order of the Adjudicating Authority? - penalty on assessee u/r 26 of CER, 2002. Held that: - in the statement of Director and laboratory report, there is nothing on record to establish that the manufacturing process has taken place either by way of electricity bills, labour charges, transport charges or any corroborative piece of evidence is available. The department has not gone beyond the approximation and the statement of Shri Agarwal. Any prudent person would not so conclude on extra production by approximation and by a mere statement of the Director of the company. Unless there are further corroborations in the form of documentary evidences, which could be like despatch details for the production, receipt details of the said material, transactions of the sale money, transportation details of such goods, details of additional consumption of electricity for such suppressed production a prudent individual would not agree with the present conclusions of the Revenue. There is nothing on record from the Revenue side to come to a reasonable conclusion to say that there has been preponderance of probability of such suppressed production on the part of the appellant - The evidences in the form of approximation and averaging production as 77.6% and one statement of Shri Agarwal, Director of the appellant company cannot be called a prudent conclusion of the production estimate. Impugned order set aside - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|