TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 489X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s statement appears to be convincing. Since, there is no evidence of clandestine removal, a demand is not sustainable - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/10687-10688/2018-SM - A/12463-12464/2018 - Dated:- 24-9-2018 - MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) For Appellant: Shri. Nazir K. Shaikh (Advocate) For Respondent: Shri. S.N. Gohil (A.R.) ORDER Per: Ramesh Nair The Central Excise Officers have visited the appellants factory and carried out the Physical verification, during which in shortage of finished goods and raw material was found. On such shortage the demand of duty was confirmed by way of adjudication order dated 19.9.2016. An appeal was filed before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MPORT), MUMBAI VS FINESSE CREATION INC.-2009 (248) E.L.T. 122 (Bom.) C.C.E., MADRAS VS SYSTEMS COMPONENTS PVT. LTD. 2004 (165) E.L.T. 136 (S.C) K.L.PAVUNNY VS ASSTT. COLLR. (HQ), C.EX. COLLECTORATE, COCHIN-19997 (90) E.L.T. 241 (S.C) SHIV SHAKTI STEEL TUBES VS C.C.E., LUDHIANA-2008 (221) E.L.T. 166 (P H) SURJEET SINGH CHHABRA VS UNION OF INDIA 1997 (89) E.L.T 646 (S.C) MONTEX DYG. PTG. WORKS VS C.C.E CUS., SURAT-l- 2007 (208) E.L.T 536 (Tri., Ahmd.) M.R.TOBACCO P. LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA- 2008 (228) E.L.T. 171(DEL.) C.C.E., MUMBAI-V VS. NIPON ZIP INDUSTRY PVT. LTD. 2009 (236) E.L.T 554 (Tri. Mumbai) SAILASH AMULAKH JOGANI VS UNION OF INDIA- 2009 (241) E.L.T. 348 (BOM.) DR. WRITER S FOOD PRODUCTS VS C.C.E., P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s passed the following order. 8. In view of the above statements, the observations made by Commissioner (Appeals) that the partner as also authorized signatory had accepted illicit removal of the final product is factually incorrect. What the said deponent has accepted is the fact of shortage only. In fact they have clarified that the shortages might have occurred on account of some clerical error or calculation mistakes. The fact that the appellants have agreed to deposit the duty amount in question so as to avoid litigation, itself cannot be held to be the basis for confirming demand of duty against the appellant. As seen, the demand stands confirmed only on the basis of shortages detected at the time of visit. The statement of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
