9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 825X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issionerate, visited the factory premises of the appellant on 31.05.2000. They claim to have recovered one Gate Register and one loose sheet showing the clinker consumption details from the factory premises. The Gate Register showed the entry and exit details of vehicles for carrying raw materials inward and finished goods outwards and the Clinker Consumption Report on the one hand and the statutory records and documents on the other hand. There were far more entries in the Gate Register and Clinker Consumption Report . When the central excise officers confronted Shri Awadhesh Singh, the authorized representative, to explain the discrepancies, he was unable to do so. Further, in his statement dated 21.6.2000, Shri Awadhesh Singh denied any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d with the said order, appellant preferred an appeal thereagainst before Commissioner(Appeals), who allowed the same by observing as under:- "6. It is seen that the whole case by the Department has been built on the purported documents Gate Register and the Clinker Consumption Report said to have been recovered, when the officers of central excise visited the factory. However, I find that there is no panchnama or any seizure memo, seizure list which would go to show that the Gate Register and the Clinker Consumption Report were seized from the factory and that too in the presence of any of the employees of the appellant. It was incumbent on the part of the officers to have drawn a seizure memo, not only with two independent witnesses but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of cement to buyer, transportation of raw material into the factory and finished goods outside the factory and the unaccounted cash. Had any of these corroborated the contents of the Gate Register and the Clinker Verification Report , there would have been scope to admit such documents. Whereas, on the contrary, when statements were recorded of persons who are alleged to have purchased such cement from the appellant, none of them have stated that they have purchased any cement except under proper invoices. In other words, even the buyers of the cement have denied purchasing any cement from the appellant which is said to have been clandestinely removed. 8. It is well settled law that in order to prove the clandestine manufacture and remov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
