TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee under the “kar vivad samadhan scheme”, which was accepted without reservation by the Revenue. Having regard to these circumstances, as to whether the cross examination of one witness was offered and whether the inference drawn by the CESTAT in this particular case was sustainable, cannot in the opinion of this Court constitute a substantial question of law requiring adjudication. - Decided against Revenue. - CEAC 2/2015, C.M. Nos.450-451/2015 - - - Dated:- 13-4-2015 - Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat And Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. K. Gauba,JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Advocate. For the Respondent : None. ORDER 1. The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Customs, Excise and Serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly converted into the flats and that they were again cleared clandestinely. 4. The evidence relied upon was identical in both the cases and the Revenue especially emphasized and relied upon the statement of one Sanjay Jain, Accountant of the said third party concern D.P. Processors. 5. The show cause notice issued to M/s D.P. Industries was confirmed. The basis for confirmation of the show cause notice as far as the assessee is concerned was identical in the sense that material used to implicate M/s D.P. Industries and the assessee was common. M/s D.P. Industries appealed successfully to the CESTAT which by its decision reported as D.P. Industries v. Commissioner, Central Excise, 2007 218 DLT 242 accepted the contentions of that asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld that same is not considered to be sufficient evidence for upholding the charges of clandestine activities. For better appreciation, we reproduce the relevant paragraph of said decision 7. The investigation officers have not taken the trouble of consulting handwriting experts to ascertain the authors of the various documents seized. The various statements recorded by the investigation officers do not throw much light regarding clandestine clearances. The appellants have stated that they receive ingots against challans issued under Rule 57F(3) and against duty paid documents issued under Rule 52A. The appellants have stated that they manufacture flats from ingots on jobwork basis and send the same on payment of duty to M/s. D.P. Proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... indeed received payments by way of sale of flats. On the basis of the record seized from Shri Hem Chand Jain, it cannot be concluded that the amounts shown in documents 5 and 14 are the sale proceeds received by the appellant company. 8. It is quite evident from the factual narrative that what the Revenue is aggrieved by in these proceedings concerns only factual findings based upon appreciation of evidence. It is not disputed that with respect to clandestine removal and the liability sought to be imposed upon the assessee, the evidence between the two units i.e. the assessee and D.P. Industries was common. The second aspect which this Court notices facially in the impugned order is that what triggered the show cause notice was the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
