TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 500X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not able to explain as to whether the goods supplied to the consignee M/s AGFPL were manufactured at the declared address. - Excise clerk of the Appellant stated that the entries are made only on paper as per the direction of Shri Shaym Sunder Arora, Proprietor. In view of the investigation conducted by the Central Excise officers with respect to Appellant pre-ponderence of probability goes in favour of the Revenue that no goods were manufactured at the declared address by the Appellant. - authenticity of rewarehousing certificate and the receipt of the finished goods at the factory premises of the consignee are doubtful and cannot be considered as authentic evidences to establish that the goods were manufactured by the Appellant bec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 37,58,247.00 duty free under 25 ARE3. That after undertaking the process of weaving fabric was manufactured and supplied to Asharani Garments Fabrics Pvt.Ltd., EOU, Medak (A.P.) (for short M/s AGFPL) and that delivery of the goods given was ex-factory to the consignee. That all the ARE3 duly endorsed by the jurisdictional Central Excise officers, incharge of Medak were duly received by the Appellant regarding rewarehousing of the fabric supplied by them. The learned Advocate made the Bench go through the various annexures to the show cause notice dt.02.12.2004 issued by Hyderabad Commissionerate and emphasized that the grey fabric was supplied to M/s AGFPL which are duly reflected in the annexure to the show cause notice. Learned Advoca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Arora, Proprietor of the Appellant and that no goods are manufactured at the said premises by the Appellant. Learned Authorised Representative also made the Bench go through the statement of Shri Anil Kumar J. Saini, Excise Clerk of the Appellant indicating that the Appellant was making entries only on paper as per the directions of Shri Shyam Sunder Arora. It was also emphasized by the learned Authorised Representative that Shri Shyam Sunder Jagannath Arora, Proprietor of the Appellant also brought certain excise records with him as no Central Excise records were available at the declared premises of the Appellant. That as per the statement of Shri Popatbhai M. Patel, Proprietor of M/s Kesarinandan Textile, working at the declared premis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, dt.29.11.2005 issued by the Commissioner, Cusoms, Central Excise, Hyderabad-I under which the demand has been confirmed with respect to ARE3 issued by the Appellant. It is observed from the case records that on the date of visit by the Central Excise officers, following four units were working at the address given by the Appellant. a) M/s Krishna Textiles (Prop. Shri Dhirubhai Manjibhai Patel) b) M/s Khodiar Textiles (Prop. Smt. Muktaben Popatbhai Patel) c) M/s Kesarinandan Textiles (Prop. Shri Popatbhai Manjibhai Patel) d) M/s Unique Textiles (Prop. Shri Kamleshbhai Popatbhai Patel) 6. The statements of the proprietors of all the above units working on the date of visit were recorded under which all those persons state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctory was working since March 2002 onwards and that all records prior to 01.04.2002 were computerized and relevant data was available in the form of computer print out which could be produced within a couple of days, but as per the OIO dt.29.11.2005 none turned up for providing the details. The period of demand in the present appeal is from 31.10.2001 to 10.02.2002. It is further observed from Para 7 of the OIO dt.29.11.2005 that several summons were issued to M/s AGFPL, but the same were not responded. In Para 18, 19 and 20 of the said OIO No. dt.29.11.2005, certain specific observations have been given by the Adjudicating authority that M/s AGFPL has floated unit exclusively with malafide intention of misusing the benefit of 100% EOU by n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocumentary evidence should be preferred over the oral submissions. The same was followed by CESTAT Mumbai in Raj Petroleum Products Vs CCE Mumbai-I (supra). The facts of the case laws relied upon by the Appellant were different than the facts of the present case, where no manufacture has been undertaken by the Appellant at all as per the investigation carried out. The case of Raj Petroleum Products Vs CCE Mumbai-I 2005 (192) ELT 806 (Tri-Mum), relied upon by the Appellant with respect to clandestine manufacture and clearance of certain goods by clubbing of clearances, the issue involved was not a situation where no clearance has been made at all. In the present case, the authenticity of rewarehousing certificate and the receipt of the finis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
