9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1069X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the premises of these transporters a case has been made out against the appellant for clandestine removal of MS Ingots without payment of duty of Rs. 10,23,666/-. The proceedings initiated by issue of show cause notice dated 07/04/10 concluded by issue of order-in-original dated 12/3/2013. The original order confirmed duty demand and imposed equal amount of penalty on the appellant. On appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order-in-original and rejected the appeal. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed this appeal. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the lower Authorities confirmed the demand only on the basis of some entries recorded in the documents seized from the premises transporters without any corro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vehicle number was entered in a sheet. In the impugned order it was observed that the records of the two transporters recovered during enquiry contained details that the appellant have issued invoices in substantial number of cases and particulars mentioned therein are the same as mentioned in the records maintained by the said two transporters. The other entries against which invoices were not issued by the appellant have similar details and, hence, the impugned order concluded wherever invoice details were not available the clearances were clandestine removals without payment of duty by the appellant. It is apparent that such presumptive conclusion based solely on private record maintained by transporters cannot be the basis for demanding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Lucknow reported in 2004 (168) E.L.T. 494 (Tri. - Del.) it was held that the onus of proof that the goods were removed by the appellant without payment of duty, without entering the same in their records is upon the Revenue which cannot be discharged merely on the strength of the entries made in the records of their third party without linking the removal of goods from the premises of the appellant company. Similar ratio has been followed in many other decisions. Reference can be made to Charminar Bottling Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad II reported in 2005 (192) E.L.T. 1057 (Tri. - Del.), Bhandary Industrial Metals Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Goa reported in 2009 (245) E.L.T. 613 (Tri. - Mumbai) and CCE, Indore vs. Rajratan Synthetics Ltd. r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
