Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 1101 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine removal - allegation based upon recovery of the alleged incriminating documents either from the appellant’s factory or from the common godown located at Greater Kailash or their Head Office, read with the statements recorded during investigations - opportunity of cross-examination denied - onus of proof - Held that:- Though the Adjudicating Authority has discussed each and every document separately but has confirmed the demands by observing that once the said documents are seized by the Revenue, then it is the appellant’s turn to rebut the same by production of sufficient evidences. Though, the appellant has given explanation in respect of each and every document but the Adjudicating Authority has observed that they have not produced any evidence on record to show that the entries in the said registers which are private documents were not entries of clandestinely removed goods. It is the Department, who is alleging clandestine removal on the part of the manufacturer and as such the onus to prove so lies upon them. Recovery of the registers/documents/lose papers maintained in the assessee’s factory for internal movement of the goods from one section to another, by itself, are not sufficient to establish the clandestine activities - further, Revenue has made no further efforts to find out the source of the procurement of raw material, the actual production in the appellant’s factory or transportation of the same or the identity of the buyers and the cash receipt of the consideration for the goods in question. In the absence of these evidences, it is not justifiable to uphold the clandestine removal charges. Benefit of exemption - Basil and Parsley soap with the aid of power - Held that:- Inasmuch as the appellant have not rebutted the use of power at various stages of manufacture of the said soaps, they were not entitled to exemption and were required to pay duty. Time limitation - Held that:- The use of power was found by the Revenue only subsequently, during the visit of the factory and subsequent investigations. As such filing of declarations, by itself, when the facts have been mis-stated in said declarations cannot come to the aid of the appellant justifying to limit the demand to the normal period of time. Decided partly in favor of assessee.
|