TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al No. E/453/2007-EX(SM) - Final Order No. 51641/2014 - Dated:- 3-4-2014 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, J. For the Appellant : Shri R.M. Saxena, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri R.K. Mishra, D.R. JUDGEMENT Per Archana Wadhwa : After hearing both the sides, I find that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of mineral water and are also manufacturing pet bottles from resins. Such pet bottles are also being got manufactured by them from various job workers. 2. There were visit of the officers in all the three factories of the appellant located at New Delhi, Jaipur and Noida on 30.5.2000. It is pertinent to mention that no discrepancy either in the stock of raw material or the final product was noticed by the offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arise they are mostly to the tune of 0.5% to 1%. The Revenue has also alleged that the appellant has shown sale of such pseudo excess plastic waste inasmuch as the buyers are not locatable. 6. The contention of the ld. Advocate is that 10% of the sale of plastic scrap was to one manufacturing unit who had shown the receipt of the same and reflection of the same in his Central excise records. No investigation stand made at his end. 7. After appreciating the submissions made by both the sides, I find that the Revenue s entire case is based upon the sole basis of generation of excess plastics scrap at the time of manufacture of plastic bottles. Otherwise, there is virtually no evidence to reflect upon the manufacture of the mineral wate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y on surmise, assumptions and presumptions. It is well settled that a duty demand cannot be maintained on assumptions and presumptions Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd., (supra). Even these assumptions lose their credibility in view of the appellants submission that allegations have been made without taking into account appellant s capacity of production at various times. The specific case of clearance of preform to M/s. Superior Pet P. Ltd. remains explained by contemporaneous records. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the case is not based on evidence. The demand is also time barred. The appellant had been reporting the wastages of inputs to the jurisdictional authorities. Evidence on record do not show that those reports were false ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
