9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1530X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cate) for the Appellant (s) Shri Pradeep Kumar Dubey (Supdt.) (A.R.) for the Revenue ORDER PER: ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR The above-stated two appeals are taken together for decision since both of them are arising out of common impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 30.10.2017. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant were engaged in the manufacture of corrugated boxes and laminated rolls. Reve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The original authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalty on the other appellant. Aggrieved by the said order both the appellants preferred appeal before Commissioner(Appeals). Learned Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the said Order-in-Original bearing date 29.04.2016 by holding as follows:- "Regarding further corroborated evidences like purchase of ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orted at 2016 (332) E.L.T. 793 (Del.) in para 36 has held that ruling in the case of D. Bhoormull (supra) was with respect to smuggled goods where onus was on the person in whose possession the contraband was found to establish that the goods were not of smuggled nature and that such provision is not available in Central Excise Act and that in Central Excise Act burden is on Revenue to prove cland ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tement of Shri Rakesh Jhindal, who was Managing Director of the Manufacturing unit. In view of ruling by Hon'ble Delhi High Court Revenue cannot take recourse to ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D. Bhoormull (supra) whenever they do not find any evidence to establish clandestine removal. I also follow the precedent decision of this Tribunal in the case of Rimjhim Ispat Ltd. and Other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
