TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 453X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d against Revenue. - Appeal No. E/1436 & 1437/2006 - ORDER NO. A/85479-85480/2018 - Dated:- 27-2-2018 - Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Shri Raju, Membere (Technical) Shri Sanjay Hasija, Supdt. (AR) for Appellant None for Respondent ORDER Per: Archana Wadhwa Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed these two appeals. 2. We have heard Shri Sanjay Hasija, learned Supdt. (AR) appearing for the Revenue. Nobody appears for the respondent. 3. On going through the impugned order, we find that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Aluminum Profiles Billets and Ingots. Their factory was visited by the Central Excise officers on 22.1.2002, who conducte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s also Security s Register and statements of some of the transporters. He took into consideration the fact that the employees as also the Director of the company at very first available opportunity explained that these reports were generated only for the purpose of satisfying the required paper work for the Bank for securing the loan. Referring to various decisions of the Tribunal, he observed that the Revenue has not investigated the matter further and has neither procured evidence for the raw materials used in the alleged manufacture and removal of their final products nor have verified the electricity consumption etc. He also observed that the appellant s claim that their production capacity is only 1.5 MT per day and is not sufficient f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, it cannot be held to be a sufficient evidence to discharge the onus placed upon the Revenue to establish the clandestine activities. Further, as rightly observed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the respondents have successfully established that they are not having furnace and capital goods for production so huge quantum of the final products. The said plea of the assessee has not been rebutted by the Revenue at any point of time. Further, we also agree with the Commissioner (Appeals) that in the absence of identification of customer and the factum of receipt of unaccounted quantum of raw material as also the factum of receipt of consideration for such clandestine removal of goods, it is not justifiable to uphold the charge of clandestine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
