TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 617X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and ER-1 returns inasmuch as in the present appeal such comparison is the only reason for upholding the charges of clandestine removal, I find no valid ground for upholding the impugned order - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/51570/2017-SM - A/50763/2018-SM[BR] - Dated:- 23-2-2018 - Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Ms. Priyanka Goel, Advocate - for the Appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aim by adducing positive and tangible evidence, which they failed to produce in the instant case. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order so far as the confirmation of demand of duty of ₹ 36,49,762/- along with interest and imposition of penalty of equivalent amount are concerned and therefore I uphold the same. Held accordingly. 3. In spite of observing that there is no evide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entries made in the balance sheet, cannot be adopted for upholding the charges of clandestine removal. Reference can be made to the following decisions: (i) CCE, Kolkata-IV Vs. RS Ispat Pvt. Ltd. - 2017 (5) TMI 753-CESTAT-KOLKATA. (ii) M/s Suma Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Thane-I 2016 (9) TMI 34-CESTAT-MUMBAI. (iii) Raam Tyres Ltd. Vs. CCE, Visakhapatnam 2005 (5) T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
