TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - - Dated:- 29-8-2018 - Dr. VINEET KOTHARI AND Mrs. S. SUJATHA JJ. JUDGMENT Dr. VINEET KOTHARI J. Mr. Jeevan J. Neeralgi, Advocate for Appellant Revenue Smt. N.S. Sandhya for Mr. M.S. Nagaraj, Advocate for Respondent No.1 Assessee None appears for the appellant Revenue though name of Sri. N.V.Prabhakaraiah is shown as the counsel for the appellant Revenue. 2. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue aggrieved by the order dated 09.11.2004 passed by the CESTAT, South Zonal Branch, Bengaluru, in Appeal No.E/436-438/2002 raising the purported questions of law in the present case. 3. The suggested questions of law arising in the above matter are quoted here below for ready reference : (i) Whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not been considered by the Tribunal ? 4. The relevant findings of the CESTAT while setting aside the Order-in-Original are also quoted below for ready reference : 6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The Department s case is that the appellants manufactured and cleared cross reel hank yarn without payment of duty in the guise of plain reel hank yarn which is not liable to Central Excise duty. When the Departmental Officers visited the unit, they found that the cross reel hank yarn was accounted as plain reel hank yarn. No doubt, this suspicion of the Department is aroused when the goods were not properly accounted. But suspicion however, well founded may be, cannot take the place of clear evidence especia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had sold only cross reel hank yarn. The Department has ascribed its own meaning for the terms XX and SPL different from what has been indicated in the diaries themselves. This is a case of imperfect reliance on certain documents to advance the Department s case. This is not permissible. As no proper investigation has been carried out with regard to fraud and evasion, we are not able to uphold the Order-in-Original. It has been held by the Tribunal in case of CCE, Jaipur Vs. Rose Metal (P) Ltd. 2001 (133) E: LT 2179 Tri. Del.) that The non-accountal of goods in RGI Register does not, ipso facto, indicate intention on the part of the assessee to evade payment of duty. Hence, the seized goods are not liable to confisc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
