9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 687X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 2. Narrating the facts, the ld. Advocate appearing for the applicants has submitted that the applicants are engaged in the manufacture of C.I Ingot Mould, C.I. Casting materials, mould boxes and scrap etc. The officers of DGCEI Unit, Kolkata, on a joint verification of the physical stock of the Applicant Company on 23.08.2008, noticed shortages in the physical stock of the finished goods, i.e. C.I Ingot Mould, C.I. Casting and also in the stock of raw materials, namely, pig iron, in contrast to the stocks shown in their statutory records. The ld. Advocate has submitted that subsequently, on completion of investigation, the applicant were issued with a demand notice alleging clearance of goods c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wal, initially in his statement dated 23.08.2008 has admitted that there was some clearances of goods without payment of duty due to market compulsion, but the said statement was later retracted on 26.08.2008. It is his submission that this computer printout was not shown to the Director nor an explanation on the same was recorded by the investigating officers from him. He has repeatedly argued that there is no other evidence whatsoever relating to removal of goods to the list of purchasers mentioned in Annexure A-25, to the show-cause notice. He has categorically stated that the statement of respective purchasers mentioned in the said statement had never been recorded, nor clearances/sale of goods were verified by the Department. The ld. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... legation of removal of finished goods of approx. 10,000 MTs. as mentioned in the computer printout, Annexure A-25 to the show-cause notice, is without any evidence. Prima facie, we find that even though the said computer printout Annexure-25, has been retrieved from the premises of the applicant on 23.08.2008, however, it is quite necessary to show that the quantity of goods mentioned therein, were cleared without payment of duty by adducing other corroborative evidence. Needless to say that the burden lies on the department. Also, prima-facie, we find that in the statement dated 23.08.08, the Director Shri Ranjilal Agarwal has accepted to removal of goods without payment of duty but the said statement cannot be extrapolated to allege that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
