Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2019 (9) TMI 576

..... rseas in their statements stated that they did not receive any Polyester Fabrics - Demand mainly based on statements of various persons - cross-examination of statements not provided - HELD THAT:- During investigation the Appellant factory was also searched and no incriminating documents or evidences were found, which shows that the Appellant did not clear Polyester fabric to M/s Sunshine Overseas and instead cleared Polyster yarn in local market. Stock of raw material and finished goods etc. were found to be in order. Even, the statutory records were found to have been correctly maintained by the appellant firm and the same has nowhere disputed. It is observed that except placing reliance on the statement of the partners of M/s Sunshine and Chief Executive Officer of the Appellant firm and two tempo owners, no other evidence on record has been brought to show that the appellant has not cleared Polyester Fabrics to M/s Sunshine Overseas. The statements of Shri Sanjay Aggarwal CEO of the Appellant firm are contradictory. Whereas in his statement dt 25.6.2003 he stated about removal of manufactured goods i.e Polyester Grey Fabrics but after 2 years he changed his version in statement .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... against CT-3 certificates. During the relevant period they had cleared goods to EOU unit M/s Sunshine Overseas, Navsari which is also an 100% EOU. Investigations were carried out at M/s Sunshine Overseas, during which statement of Partner, Rasid Sadatali Saiyed was recorded wherein he stated that he was holding 90% shares in M/s Sunshine Overseas and 10% shares were held by Shri Sushil Bansal. That the real owner of the firm is Shri Harron Bhai, who is taking 90% profit. He also stated that they were purchasing fabrics from Surat and after cutting and stitching, they manufacture Scarfs and Dupattas, which were exported. From January 2003, they received fabrics of different types under the cover of annexures issued by the Central Excise and they were showing fictitious names and addresses of the buyers at Bhiwandi on the Central Excise DTA invoices as no goods were delivered. He also stated that Shri Haroon Chhaya, owner of M/s Al Amin Exports and Shri Irfan Bhai are looking after all monetary dealings of M/s Sunshine Overseas. Statements of Shri Irfan and Shri Haroon were recorded wherein they stated that the entire operations of M/s Sunshine were looked after by them. That they w .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... and as per details of invoice, AR-3, D-3 declarations, they also maintained statutory registers viz. In-bond Register, Daily Issue of Raw Material Register, Daily Stock Register, Export Register, Wastage Register etc., as prescribed in terms of Manufacture & Supply Operations in Warehouse Regulation Rules, 1966 and also filed periodical returns showing manufacturing and supply of finished goods to the recipient of 100% EOU viz. M/s Sunshine Overseas. Only on the basis of statements allegations were made against Appellant. There is no evidence of removal of duty free raw material by the Appellant i.e. movement of goods, any identified buyer or recipient of goods, any amount being received by the appellants on account of removal, or transportation of goods. During the visit to the Appellant factory and preparation of panchnama, no discrepancy was found in stock of raw material, finished goods and inventory record. There is no dispute about the fact that the Appellant had maintained properly all the statutory records. They also followed the procedures of Removal of Finished Goods to Other 100% EOUs in terms of Rule 20 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and CBE&C Circular No. 579/16 .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... Polyester Yarn and not Polyester Knitted Grey Fabrics. However, when he was questioned about names of the consignor, he stated that he did not remember the place where he had delivered the goods. That there are 46 consignments of finished goods, which were transported through different vehicles, but only one single recorded statement dated 11.3.2005 involving one transporter and two tempos cannot automatically prove that all other vehicles were used to transport Polyester Yarn in the alleged clandestine manner. He submits that in above circumstances and in absence of cross examination, the statements of persons connected with M/s Sunshine Overseas or transporter cannot be basis for making demand against Appellant unit. 2.2 The Ld. Counsel further submits that though the Revenue s case is that there was no manufacture and removal of finished goods, but no evidence has been brought on record, but say that there was No Manufacture or disapproved documents available on record showing the effect of manufacture and clearance of finished goods. He also relies upon the judgments in case of SUNSHINE OVERSEAS vs CCE - 2011 (268) ELT 374 (Tri), and NITIN TEXTILES - 2010 (261) ELT 181 (Tri). H .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... ontradictory. Whereas in his statement dt 25.6.2003 he stated about removal of manufactured goods i.e Polyester Grey Fabrics but after 2 years he changed his version in statement dated 12.3.2005 that the raw material was cleared by the Appellant. Similarly statement dt 12.7.2003 of Tempo Driver Shri Saiyad and statement dtd 19.8.2003 of Shri Akbar Sahid Umar, tempo owner, they did not say anything about transportation of raw material. It was only in March 2005 that statement of Shri Vijay Purohit, Tempo owner was recorded who on the basis of memory though stated that they had transported Polyester Grey Fabrics and not Polyester Yarn, but could not say as to where such goods were consigned. In such case the statements made by the transporters cannot be made basis for making allegation to clandestine diversion of raw material by the Appellant. It is also a fact on record that though 46 consignments of finished goods were transported through different vehicles, but only one statement dated 11.3.2005 of Shri Vijay Purohit has been relied upon to allege removal of Polyester Yarn in clandestine manner. We also find that Shri Sanjay Aggarwal vide affidavit dt 1.7.2003 and 4.3.2005 had ret .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||