9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otal confirmed demand of Rs.3.1 crores consist of two parts; Rs.2.98 crores relates to allegation of clandestine removal of goods without payment of duty and Rs.11.16 Lakhs relates to denial of Cenvat credit on Zinc ingots. The Ld. Advocate submitted that the applicants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods viz. GI structures, G.I. Stey Sets, G.I. Earthing Pile/Spike, G.I. Earthing Coil, G.I. Cable Tray/Perforated Cable Tray etc. falling under Chapter 73 of CETA, 1985. The Ld. Advocate submitted that these goods were used mainly in Railway Electrification, Sub-station transmission, line towers etc. The Ld. Advocate submitted that besides manufacturing of above mentioned goods, the applicants are also engaged in purchase of mater ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have deposited an amount of Rs.15.00 Lakhs and made an offer to deposit an amount of Rs.40.00 Lakhs (Rupees Forty Lakhs only). 3. Per contra, the Ld. A.R. for the Revenue has submitted that the Ld. Commissioner has reduced the initial demand of around Rs.12crores (Approx.) to Rs.3crores(approx.) after taking into consideration the evidences produced by the applicant; where ever the applicant could establish that the goods were purchased by them from the market and not manufactured in their factory; the Ld. Commissioner dropped the demand. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the entire case against the applicant is based on the basis of seizure of private records retrieved from various premises of the applicant and the Ld. Commissioner afte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es and dropped in other cases, without assigning reasons in the said Table. The Ld. Commissioner in the impugned order has observed that the allegation of clandestine removal cannot solely be on the basis of the records but also depends various other factors, including item specification, nature of the goods in question, nature of the disputes involving them, tangibility or palpability of any proposition adduced etc.. We find that the Ld. Advocate has made a serious attempt to show that the Ld. Commissioners order is based on assumptions and presumptions, suffers from infirmity and marred by self-contradictions. We do not entirely agree with the said contention. Prima facie we find that reasoning has been recorded by the Ld. Commissioner w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
