TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 900X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rities is not based merely on absence of any challan, under cover of which the goods are normally required to be removed. The inference is mainly on account of absence of contemporaneous record backing the theory that the goods were removed for purposes of reprocessing by DPPL on job work basis. The record indicates that Kopran Limited has a well organised system for documentation, when it comes to record of receipt of raw materials, production, stores and despatch. However, when it comes to goods in question, such documentation, is just not to be found. Even contemporaneous records such as entries in loading Register, Gate outward Register and Returnable Register make no entries in relation to the goods in question. This is certainly a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eard learned counsel for the parties. 2] The learned counsel for the parties state that these three appeals can be disposed of with a common order, since the challenge in these appeals is to the same final order dated 16th February 2017 made by the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Branch, Mumbai (Tribunal). 3] The appellants in Central Excise Appeal (CEXA) Nos.163 of 2018 and 165 of 2018 are the Ex-Assistant Manager (Excise) and Ex-Vice President of M/s. Kopran Ltd. respectively, which is the appellant in CEXA No. 162 of 2018. For all these reasons, it is only appropriate that these appeals are disposed of by a common order. 4] Mr. Vishal Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants, pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Upon completion of investigations, the Show Cause Notice was issued to Kopran Limited demanding excise duty, interests and penalty, inter alia, on the ground that excisable goods were removed from its factory premises to the factory premises of DPPL, without payment of excise duty and compliance with prescribed legal procedures. The penalties were also proposed upon the appellants in CEXA Nos. 163 of 2018 and 165 of 2018. 6] The Adjudicating Authority, by order dated 9th November 2004, after following the principles of natural justice confirmed the demand, ordered confiscation of the seized goods with an option of redemption on payment of fine. The appellants' fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of both Kopran Limited as well as DPPL, very clearly indicate that the goods in question were removed for purpose of reprocessing on the job work basis. He submits that batch numbers of the goods as well as the other details were available and all this material militates against any inference on clandestine removal of the goods with an intention to evade payment of excise duty. 9] Mr. Agrawal submits that some minor discrepancies could hardly be said to be sufficient to infer clandestine removal of goods, particularly when in the year 2001-2002, the Rules did not provide for any prescribed procedures for removal of such goods. Mr. Agrawal, therefore, urges admission of these appeals upon aforesaid question, which he submits are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The inference is mainly on account of absence of contemporaneous record backing the theory that the goods were removed for purposes of reprocessing by DPPL on job work basis. The record indicates that Kopran Limited has a well organised system for documentation, when it comes to record of receipt of raw materials, production, stores and despatch. However, when it comes to goods in question, such documentation, is just not to be found. Even contemporaneous records such as entries in loading Register, Gate outward Register and Returnable Register make no entries in relation to the goods in question. This is certainly a circumstance which is required to be held against the appellants. Therefore, even if we were to accept Mr.Agrawal's case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terial being 'dummy material'. The remaining statements also do not fully support the theory put forth by Kopran Ltd in relation to the goods in question. 15] The scope of an appeal under Section 35G of Central Excise Act, 1944, is quite limited. The appellants have to make out a case of involvement of a substantial question of law in the context of challenge to findings of fact, perhaps, such a case can be made out only if perversity is demonstrated. In the record of findings of fact. In the present case, there is sufficient material on record to sustain the findings of fact recorded by three authorities concurrently. The view taken by the Tribunal is certainly, a plausible view based upon the material on record. According ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
