TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 587X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asis of Note Book. The demand of duty on the basis of a Note Book maintained by the employee, who is not authorized person and is not corroborative with any evidence, is unjust, improper and unreasonable. Demand not sustained - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/1580-1581/2006-SM(BR) - 985-986/2008-SM(BR)/(PB) - Dated:- 8-4-2008 - Shri P.K. Das, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri S.L. Meena, DR, for the Appellant. Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the Respondent No. 1 is engaged in the manufacture of Lead and Lead Based Alloy classifiable under sub-heading No. 7803.10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, availing benefit of SSI exempti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner (Appeals), whereby Adjudication Order was set aside. Hence, the Revenue filed these appeals against the Respondents. 2. Ld. DR on behalf of the Revenue submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) erroneously held that some entries in the Notebook are vague, without any corroboration. He further submits that the Respondent No. 2 disowned Notebook, but the Supervisor in his statement admitted that the Notebook relates to clearance of the goods. He also submits that the goods were seized on 7-1-2005 and the Respondent No. 2, Director of the Company produced the Invoice No. 64 dated 7-1-2005 on 11-1-2005, which indicates the manipulation of the documents. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Jaipur v. M/s. Jyo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Respondent crossed the full exemption of Rs. 1 Crore and they are liable to pay duty thereon. It is seen that the Respondents disputed authenticity and ownership of the Notebook. On perusal of the statement as recorded in the Adjudication Order, it appears that the Supervisor stated that the Notebook relates to clearance of the goods. But the Respondent No. 2 in his statements dated 11-1-2005 and 12-5-2005 stated that the Notebook was not maintained by the authorized signatory of the Respondent-Company and he had no knowledge of the said Notebook. Admittedly, the supervisor was not the authorized signatory of the appellant-company. But the Investigating Officers neither verified the contention of the Supervisor with the Respondent No. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d with RG 1 register. The above entries pointed out by the Appellant, show that, the figures of quantity shown in that record are not matching with the numbers of ingots or average weight of the ingots. I also agree with the Appellants plea that, there is nothing on record to prove that the alleged goods were manufactured in the factory of the Appellant, the Appellant had received unaccounted raw material, consumed excess electricity and received funds from the buyer against the alleged sale. In absence of which charges of clandestine removal cannot be established. 5. It is revealed from the Adjudication Order that the Respondents contended that the Mould for casting of ingots/slabs out of the molten material in the Respondents factory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is contended by the Respondent that 550 pieces of ingots comes to 12560 Kgs. 6. The above figures indicate that the entries in the Notebooks are totally misconceived and inconsistent. Thus, it appears that the entries in the Notebook are vague and not corroborative with the records. The Adjudicating Authority observed that the maintenance of such Notebooks by the Supervisor was reasonably expected. But the Investigating Officers did not examine the Respondent No. 2, at this regard and there is no other corroborative evidence on record to show the clandestine removal of the finished goods on the basis of Note Book. In any event, the demand of duty on the basis of a Note Book maintained by the employee, who is not authorized person and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision of the Tribunal in the case of Jyoti Cement Pvt. Ltd. (supra). In the present case the Respondent disputed the authenticity and ownership of the Notebook and, therefore the said case law is not applicable herein. 8. I also noted that the Adjudicating Authority observed that the seizure of the goods and the vehicle was not ordinary situation, being the Director of the Company, the Respondent No. 2 should have immediately rushed to submit the invoice not accompanied with the consignment so that seizure could be avoided. It is seen from the statement of the Respondent No. 2 as reproduced in the Adjudication Order, he had explained in detail why the Invoice No. 64 dated 7-1-2005 was not presented before the officers during visit to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
