TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be not sufficient evidence to confirm the balance demand inasmuch as there is no corroboration to the same - also, there is nothing on record to show that the trucks were loaded with the iron and steel items, which is the appellants final product - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Excise Appeal No. 1131 /2007 - FINAL ORDER NO . 51845/2017 - Dated:- 14-2-2017 - Ms Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) and Mr. B Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri G R Singh, DR for the Appellants None for the Respondent ORDER Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner, Revenue has filed the present appeal. We have heard Shri G R Singh, learned DR appearing for the Revenue. Nobody appeared for the respondent. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 377; 58,14,587.00 on the ground that the same is based solely on the entries made in the weighment register of dharm kanta, which entries even do not establish that the trucks weighted in the said dharm kanta were loaded with iron and steel articles. As such, by referring to and relying upon various decisions of the Tribunal, he set aside the proposal to confirm the demand. He also dropped the demand of ₹ 5,51,460.00 by observing that the there is virtually no evidence on record to show that the truck which cleared the goods manufactured by the appellant were loaded with the excess loads then what was reflected in the invoices. For better appreciation, the relevant paragraph from the impugned order is reproduced herein as under: 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e persons who got the same weighed. Therefore, it is not established that the said entries pertain to iron and steel products. The investigation has not brought any evidence to prove that the said trucks transported steel material from the factory of party no. 1. Further, the investigators has not made any effort to locate the consignees of the alleged goods and payments received by the party in respect of the said goods. Therefore the allegation is solely based on insufficient entries of weighment register. They have also failed to bring on record any evidence relating to the clandestine receipt of the raw material for the manufacture of the said goods and also the source of the supply of additional electricity required for the manufacture ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... destinely is necessary in to establish the allegation of suppression of production and clandestine removal of goods and that the allegation are to be proved with affirmative evidences. CEGAT in case of Emmtex Synthetics Ltd. vs. CCE [2003 (151) ELT 170 (Tri) has held that the charge of clandestine removal has to be established by the revenue by adducing tangible, convincing and cogent evidences, CESTAT in the case of Esvee Polymers (P) Ltd. vs. CCE [2004 (165) ELT 291 (Tri)] dealt with a case of alleged clandestine production and clandestine removal. The case was based on some private slips. The CESTAT observed that the mere slips or statement are not sufficient for confirmation of demand and allegation of clandestine removal. Evidence in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vs. CCE [2004 (177) ELT 364 (Tri)], Premium Moulding pressing Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE [2004 (177) ELT 904 (Tri)], Vakharia Traders vs. CCE [2004 (173) ELT 287 (Tri) Nutech Polymers Ltd. vs. CCE Jaipur [2004 (173) ELT 385 (Tri)], CCE vs. Sumangla Steels [2004 (175) ELT 634 (Tri)], CCE vs. Sangamitra Cotton Mills [2004 (163) ELT 472 (Tri)], CCE vs. Velavan Spinning Mills [2004 (167) ELT 91 (Tri)]. The ratio of these decisions is applicable in the instant case. Since the investigation has failed to adduce evidences to establish suppression of production and clandestine removal of the goods as discussed above and failed to discharge the onus to prove the allegations, the allegations are not sustainable. In viewe of the above discussions, the alle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by him and accordingly, the vehicle will move to the second manufacturer for loading of the other description of the goods and so on. Therefore, merely for the repeated weighment of the same vehicle it cannot be concluded that the party No. 1 has issued invoices for a lesser quantity of the goods. Further, the investigations have also not adduced any substantive evidence like receipt of excess quantity of goods by the consignee as the details of consignee was available in the invoice, receipt of payment for more quantity of the goods by the party from the buyers. In the absence of any such evidence, the allegation of removal of more goods by showing lesser quantity in invoice in respect of demand of ₹ 5,51,460.00 is not established ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
