9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been imposed on the co-appellant Shri Ashok Agarwal, Director of the company. 2. The facts of the case are that on being received intelligence that the appellants are availing SSI exemption but their turnover has crossed more than Rs. 2 crores in the financial year 2013-2014, therefore, a search was conducted at the factory premises of the appellant on 29/09/2014, nothing incriminating was found during the course of search in the factory premises and all the stocks of inputs/finished goods were found in order, but during the course of search at the residence of the Director of the appellant company, certain loose sheets were found. Out of these loose sheets, some loose sheets remained unexplained by the Director of the appellant company. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... To support his contention, the learned Counsel relied on the decisions of Modern Laboratories vs. CCE, Indore - 2017 (358) E.L.T. 1179 (Tri. - Del.) and Davinder Sandhu Impex Ltd. vs. CCE, Ludhiana - 2016 (337) E.L.T. 99 (Tri. - Del.). 4. On the other hand, learned AR opposed the contention of the learned Counsel and submits that in this case the Director himself has admitted during the course of investigation that the loose sheets recovered from the possession of the Director at the residence belongs to the clandestine removal of goods and was ready to pay duty thereon, therefore, without retraction of the said statement, the same is admissible as held by this Tribunal in the cases of CCE & ST, Ahmedabad - II vs. TEC Papers Pvt. Ltd. - 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the activity of clandestine removal of goods. Merely, the corroborative statement of the Director of the appellant company cannot be the basis in the clandestine removal of the goods in the light of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Davinder Sandhu Impex Ltd. (supra), wherein it has been held that the incriminating statement relied upon by the Revenue is not admissible evidence in the absence of corroborative evidence. 9. In view of above observations, I find that as in this case Revenue has not come up with any corroborative evidence to support the case of clandestine removal of goods, in that circumstance, the charge of clandestine removal remained unproved. Therefore, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
