Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2017 (11) TMI 341

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... asamy which is merely to the effect that he is not able to show the invoices in respect of the alleged clearances and if the Revenue is of the view that such yarn received by the sizing units has been cleared from their factory, without payment of duty, he is ready to pay the duty. Apart from the fact that confessional statements cannot be adopted solely for arriving at the clandestine removal findings, I find that the said statement of Shri S.Rangasamy cannot be held to be confessional statement, in strict sense, in as much as there is no acceptance of the fact that they were indulging in clandestine activities - Revenue has not examined the scribe of the entries made in the receipt book of the sizing mills, on the basis of which the entir .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... asamy stands abated in terms of Rule 22 of CESTAT Procedural Rules. 2. As regards the appeal filed by M/s. Selvapathy Mills Pvt. Ltd., I find that the said appellant is engaged in the manufacture of cotton cone yarns. As per records, the appellant s factory was visited by the Central Excise Officers for annual stock taking on 05.12.1998 and no discrepancy was found. Thereafter, stock taking was undertaken on 27.11.1999, without detecting any discrepancies. The Preventive Officers also undertook the stock taking in the appellant s factory on 10.12.1999, but did not find any discrepancy either in the stock of raw materials or the final products. 3. It is seen that two other units under the name and style of Shri Deivam Sizing Mills as a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as per the request of the buyers and he is not in a position to show the invoices for all yarn received by the said two units as he is unable to show the invoices showing clearances of all the yarn. 4. On the above basis proceedings were initiated against the appellant alleging clandestine removal of the yarn during the period 98- 99 and 99-2000. The said proceedings resulted in confirmation of duty vide impugned order of the original adjudicating authority, which stands upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the present appeal. 5. After hearing both sides duly represented by Shri J Shankararaman for the appellants and Shri B. Balamurugan for the Revenue and after going through the impugned orders, I find that the Revenue s case .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oval findings, I find that the said statement of Shri S.Rangasamy cannot be held to be confessional statement, in strict sense, in as much as there is no acceptance of the fact that they were indulging in clandestine activities. Further, Revenue has not examined the scribe of the entries made in the receipt book of the sizing mills, on the basis of which the entire case of the Revenue is made. Further, there is no incriminating documents or statements of any of the representatives of the three units, through whom the yarn has been sent to the sizing units, indicating that such yarn was received by them from the present appellant. It is a matter of fact on record, which does not stand denied by the Revenue that the said three units were also .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ove decisions to the facts of the present case, I find that the findings of the lower authorities are based upon the surmises and conjectures and there is virtually no evidence produced by the Revenue to establish clandestine removal against the assessee. It is also to be noted that during the relevant period the appellant s factory was put to stock taking, by the officers themselves, not once but three times and no discrepancies were found either in the raw materials stock or the final product stock. In such a scenario, the appellants cannot be held to be indulging in clandestine activities and it is for the Revenue to produce the evidence to support its allegations. As already observed there is not even an iota of evidence reflecting upon .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates