TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 948X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of any buyers - the requirements to establish clandestine manufacture and clearance have not been satisfied by the revenue to confirm the demand in the present case. The officers of revenue conveniently presumed that Raj Ratan stated in loose slips, to be appellant. Under such mistake of understanding of the word Raj Ratan stated on the loose slips to be the appellant without establishing that Raj Ratan stated on the slips was appellant and contrary to the statement of Shri Pawan Agarwal dated 25.02.2004 wherein Shri Pawan Agarwal did not state that he used to do broking for appellant, revenue has framed charges. Therefore, the said SCN is not sustainable. Demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/MISC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Atma Ram Khatri or that of Shri Sunil Khatri. 23 loose slips were found at the residence of Shri Pawan Agarwal and entire investigation was carried out on the basis of said 23 loose slips. Various statements were recorded. Statement of Shri Pawan Agarwal was recorded on 25.02.2004, statement of Shri Sunil Khatri was recorded on 07.06.2005, statement of Sri Abhishek Jaiswal, director of Vijay Ispat Private Limited was recorded on 16.05.2005 and statement of Shri Amit Jain, director of M/s Premier Ispat Limited, Jainpur, Kanpur, was recorded on 19.05.2004. Shri Sunil Khatri in his statement dated 07.06.2005 stated that in respect of above stated 23 loose slips, the said deals refer to year 2003 and 2004 and he was not in a position to st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pon for issue of show cause notice was taken into consideration by the original authority to confirm the demand and imposition of equal penalty on the appellant. Further, Shri Sunil Khatri was imposed with penalty of ₹ 15 lakhs. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants are before this Tribunal. 3. The grounds of appeal are as follows:- (i) At the time of search, one of the employee of appellant's company Shri Madhavendra Singh was brutally beaten by senior officer of DGCEI, Shri Shashi Shekhar. Further, an F.I.R. was also lodged against Shri Shashi Shekhar. (ii) The learned Commissioner has failed to appreciate that in the preliminary statement of Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal, he has clearly stated that the transaction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... loose slips was also not got verified through the hand writing expert to indicate that the slips were prepared by Shri Pawan Agarwal. He submitted that except the said 23 loose slips there was no evidence relied upon, by revenue in respect of procurement of raw materials facility to manufacture, transportation of goods, buyers of the goods nor sale proceeds to establish clandestine manufacturer and clearance of the goods by the appellant. He further relied upon the ruling of Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Flevel International Vs Commissioner of Central Excise reported at 2016 (332) ELT 416 (Delhi). He has drawn our attention to para 55 and 56 of the said case law and argued that the evidence that is required to establis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A copy of statement of Shri Pawan Agarwal dated 25.02.2004 is available at pages 69 to 71 of additional paper book. On perusal of the same it is clear on page 70 that Shri Pawan Agarwal has stated that he was engaged in brokerage and used to do broking for M/s Raj Ratan Industries, M/s Reyal Cement Company and Isha Babu, Hiklesh Pan and D.P. Gupta. We find that in said para 6.1 reference is made to the said statement dated 25.02.2004 wherein appellants name was not stated by Shri Pawan Agarwal but it is stated in said para 6.1 that Shri Pawan Agarwal stated that he used to do broking for appellant. We find that para 6.1 also reproduced the contents of those loose slips. In the last column Raj Ratan is mentioned. The officers of revenue conv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t payment of duty; (c) discovery of such finished goods outside the factory; (d) instances of sale of such goods to identified parties; (e) receipt of sale proceeds, whether by cheque or by cash, of such goods by the manufacturers or persons authorized by him; (f) use of electricity far in excess of what is necessary for manufacture of goods otherwise manufactured and validly cleared on payment of duty; (g) statements of buyers with some details of illicit manufacture and clearance; (h) proof of actual transportation of goods, cleared without payment of duty; (i) links between the documents recovered during the search and activities being carried on in the factory of production; etc. 56. In the prese ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
