9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 418X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Section 11(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and whether or not the impugned notice is hit by limitation under Section 11(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Heard both sides. 3. I find from the contents of the Show Cause Notice that the allegations are based on record maintained by a third party. The said record did not bear full name of the Appellant. But the authorities assumed that the short name mentioned in the documents was that of the Appellant. Therefore, the demand was made against the Appellant solely on presumption and assumption, without any corroborative evidence placed on record. 4. No demand can be sustained solely on the basis of privately maintained, third party records. Merely because the investig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trong provide details of receipts with dates, manufacture or sale to identifiable buyers, etc. - It was essential to have some corroboration for such clandestine activity other than sole evidence of general admission statement of Director or partner, whose contents itself was contested and denied later - Rules 11 and 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. [para 7]. (b) Commissioner of C. Ex., Indore v. Prag Pentachem Pvt. Ltd. Reported in 2018 (360) E.L.T. 1025 (Tri. - Del.). Cenvat credit - Bogus transactions - Invoice only received without goods - Evidence - Third party evidence - Revenue, inter alia, relying on written slops/entries of laptop seized from residence of cashier of dealer issuing invoices, alleging that these contain det ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have received the material without payment of Duty and without cover of Invoice does not conclusively prove that the Appellant has in fact removed the goods clandestinely without payment of Duty. 8. The Revenue has clearly failed to corroborate with reasonable accuracy the aspect of production and clandestine removal by the Appellant. 9. I also find that the matter was in the knowledge of the Revenue right from 19-9-2012, when the Statement of Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Director of M/s. PIL was recorded and the sole piece of evidence in the shape of his records, was withdrawn by the officers. Thereafter, a Statement dated 12-12-2013 of Ms. Permanand Sahu, Accountant and Authorized Signatory of the Appellant was also recorded under Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
