9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1561X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Glasses falling under Chapter Heading No.39241090 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They had availed value based exemption for Small Scale Industries in terms of Notification No.08/2003-CE. On 29.04.2009 the officers of Central Excise visited the factory premises of respondent and physical verification of the stock of finished goods and raw material was done, which was found to be correct. The officers resumed some records and some statements were also recorded. On examination of the records by the Central Excise officers, it was revealed that the electricity consumption in the appellant s factory was dis-proportionate to the production of the goods recorded in books. On the basis of investigation and statements, a show cause notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed for production of finished goods per kilogram. I also find that there is nothing on the record to suggest if any excess raw material or finished goods were found in the store at the time of checking. There is also no evidence on the record to suggest the clandestine receipt of the raw material from various buyers and sale of the finished goods to different persons during the period in dispute by the appellants. No discrepancy in the ER-1 returns, which were regularly filed by the appellants, was detected by the Excise Department. No seizure of the finished goods supplied to any customers in a clandestine manner, without payment of duty took place. No statement of any buyer of having received the goods from the appellants in a clandestin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue is not maintainable in law. It is a settled law that no lawful conclusion could be arrived as there was excess production and clandestine removal, of the goods by the appellants for want of corroboration from any other source." 4. Further, learned Commissioner (Appeals) also relied various ruling of this Tribunal and High Court including the ruling of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-I Vs R.A. Castings Pvt. Ltd. reported at 2011 (269) ELT 337 (All.). He further set aside the entire demand and penalty on assessee as well as partner. Aggrieved by the said order, revenue preferred appeal before this Tribunal. 5. Learned A.R. for revenue has relied on the decision of original authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
