9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 698X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Lalit Aggarwal and Shri. Vikas Varshney, CA/ Accountant of the firm owned by Shri Kishore Aggarwal. 2. The facts of the case are that the main appellant is engaged in the manufacture of packaged drinking water in 20 liters jars under the brand name of Kingfisher, which is owned by the M/s UB Limited and not paying duty and clearing goods clandestinely. M/s Iceberg Foods Limited (IFL for short) and M/s Deo Pvt. Limited which relates to one of the appellant Shri. Kishore Aggarwal was given franchisee of kingfisher to which M/s UB Limited was supplying materials like capes, stickers and empty jars etc. to the appellants through their distributors. The case of the Revenue is that investigation was conducted at the end of M/s IFL and M/s Iceb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he basis of the statements and documents recorded from third party, the demand cannot be confirmed without any corroborative evidence, therefore, the impugned order is required to be set aside. To support these contentions, he relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Modern Laboratories Vs. CCE, Indore reported in 2017-TIOL-1827-CESTAT-DEL. He also relied on the decisions in the case of Shivam Steel Corporation reported in 2016 (339) ELT 310 (Tri. Kolkata), Arya Fibers Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2014 (311) ELT 529 (Tri. Ahmd.) and CCE, Raipur Vs. Shree Harekrishna Sponge pvt. Ltd. reported in 2015 (329) ELT 422 (Tri. Del.). He further submits that during the course of adjudication, the appellants sought cross examination of the wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r record. He further submits that M/s IFL and M/s IAPL have gone before the Settlement Commission and paid the duty as per the documents recovered from their possession. In that circumstances, he submits that the demands are to be confirmed against the appellants. 5. Heard both sides and considered the submissions. 6. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, I find that in the case in hand, it is admitted fact that the documents which have been relied upon to confirm the demand of clandestine removal of the goods against the appellants are based on the computer printouts and the hard disk/pen drive recovered from the possession of Shri. Lalit Gupta, CA and Shri. Vikas Varshney of M/s IFL and M/s IAPL. It is also a f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
