Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 315 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine removal - parallel invoices - the demand is mainly based upon the handwritten pencil ledgers seized by the Revenue - statement of Shri Ravindra Singh relied upon which was later on retracted - Held that:- On the basis of the computerized statement of clearances, which was made on the basis of illegible hand written ledgers and the statement of Shri Ravindra Singh, which stands retracted in his cross-examination, the demand cannot be made against the Appellant unit - further, no corroborative evidence has been brought on record to show transportation or procurement in the form of bilty receipts or goods receiving note by the recipient of the goods. We find that once the pencil written ledger entries were not legible, it was not possible to re-write the ledger and prepare ledger on the basis of such entries. Further, no statement of the supplier of the raw material has been recorded to show that the raw materials were supplied to the Appellant unit for manufacture of finished goods. When the Revenue has alleged huge evasion by clandestine clearances, it was obvious that there would have been discrepancy either in the stock of raw material or finished goods, which is absent in the present case. Demand on the basis of alleged clandestine removal under the cover of 8 parallel invoices - Held that:- The Revenue has not shown either in the show cause notice or in the impugned order as to from where these invoices, which were photocopies, were retrieved by the Department. No Corroboration of these invoices are appearing on record. In such case when the authenticity of these invoices is in question and the same has not been substantiated by the Revenue, the demand made on the basis of such invoices does not sustain. Demand on job work activity undertaken by the Appellant - benefit of exemption notification has been denied to the Appellant on the ground that they have failed to maintain challan and register of such job work activity - Held that:- When the Revenue themselves are of the view that the Appellant had undertaken the job work activity and the name of persons for whom such job work activity was undertaken, the Revenue should have investigated as to whether the principal manufacturer has paid the duty on the said finished goods or not - the benefit of exemption notification cannot be denied to an assessee on the ground of non-following the procedure - the demand against Appellant are not sustainable. The demand and penalty against the Appellant M/s Deepak Industries is not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|