TMI Blog2004 (7) TMI 577X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has overlooked the statements of the Director and the employees of the respondent No. 1 company, and wrongly reversed the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority who held the respondents guilty of clandestine removal of 8,000 kgs. of laminated pouch rolls during the period July to October, 1998. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned Counsel has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order and argued that the alleged statements of the Director and employees of the respondents have been rightly not accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals) being contrary to the documentary evidence brought on record. In support of his contention, he has referred to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... andestine removal of the goods involving duty of the above said amount, but their statements had been wrongly ignored by the Commissioner (Appeals). After going through the impugned order, in my view, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly not placed any value on the alleged confessional statements of the above said respondents. The respondents had produced the documentary evidence i.e. the copy of the bill dated 21-9-1998 showing the purchase of structures for the printing machines; copy of the invoices dated 22-9-1998 for purchase of shafts Pully for the machines installed; copy of the notice dated 12-10-1998 showing the purchase of LDPE Granules on which credit was taken and accounted for in the RG 23-A Part-I Part-II; copy o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no machinery even during that period for the manufacture of Laminated Pouches. They started manufacturing of such pouches only after 8-10-1998. He has also observed that even otherwise the manufacture of 8,000 kgs. of laminated pouches during the disputed period could not take place. No evidence has been also brought on record to prove the purchase of extra raw material or consumption of extra electricity by the respondents. Therefore, I do not find any sufficient ground to disagree with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that there is no evidence on the record to prove the clandestine manufacture/removal of the goods during the period in dispute by the respondents. He has rightly set aside the duty demand and penalties, as imposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
