TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 1173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... corroborative evidence to support those loose handwritten documents nor any evidence to connect them to the alleged guilt of the appellant or to the alleged guilt of M/s. RIGL where the appellant is director. The statement of appellant, Smt. Sunita Devi, was recovered in June, 2005. There appears no acknowledgement on her part about she being involved in the alleged collusion with SSSRM for the alleged clandestine removal except for the raw material to have been delivered to SSSRM - the entire burden was that of the Department to prove that the appellant have been clearing the raw material from their premises and were getting the same delivered to M/s.SSSRM without discharging their liability. It becomes clear that there is no admis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Advocate for the Appellant MR. Mahesh Bhardwaj, Authorised Representative for the Department ORDER The appellant herein is the Director of M/s.Rajasthan Industrial Gases Ltd. (RIGL herein) and the company is a manufacturer of M. S. Ingots. Acting upon an intelligence that M/s Shree Sharma Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Limited (SSSRM herein) Jaipur were indulging in suppression of production and clandestine removal of bars/ rods, that the premises of SSSRM was searched on 10.09.2005. Certain loose documents were recovered from the premises under resumption memo prepared on the spot on 10.09.2005 itself. Some other documents in the form of hand written ledger books pertaining to the period from April, 2005 were also recovered on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egation based upon the documents recovered from third party. The demand is liable to be set aside on this score. In addition, it is submitted that the demand for the period June, 2005 to September, 2006 has been raised by a show cause notice of the year 2009, there has never been any suppression on part of the appellant nor the Department has produced any evidence. It is submitted that excise returns were being filed regularly by the appellant. All facts and figures were regularly being noticed by the Department. Hence, Department has wrongly invoked the extended period of limitation. The demand is liable to be set aside on this score as well. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has also impressed upon that the demand of the impugned Show Cause N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n with SSSRM for the alleged clandestine removal except for the raw material to have been delivered to SSSRM. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the entire burden was that of the Department to prove that the appellant have been clearing the raw material from their premises and were getting the same delivered to M/s.SSSRM without discharging their liability. 6. From the order-in-original it is observed that the demand against the appellant has been confirmed solely on the ground that the Director of the appellant could not indicate any reason as to why the entries in the private record of SSSRM mention appellant s name. The said finding are held to be definite presumptive findings. The order is not discussing any documents re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ching evidence of the nature of purchase of raw materials, use of electricity, sale of final products, clandestine removals, the mode and flow back of funds, demands cannot be confirmed solely on the basis of presumptions and assumptions. Clandestine removal is a serious charge against the manufacturer, which is required to be discharged by the Revenue by production of sufficient and tangible evidence. On careful examination, it is found that with regard to alleged removals, the department has not investigated the following aspects : (i) To find out the excess production details. (ii) To find out whether the excess raw materials have been purchased. (iii) To find out the dispatch particulars from the regular transporters. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clandestine manufacture and removal of the goods. 10. With respect to the issue of limitation, it is held that apparently and admittedly appellant was regularly filing the returns. Hence, the facts were regularly brought to the notice of the Department. But there is nothing produced on record by the Department to show any positive act on part of the appellant which may amount to suppression of relevant facts. Resultantly, the demand for a period of more than one year could not have been made. Department could not have invoked the extended period of limitation. Show cause notice issued invoking the greater period is therefore, held to be barred by time. The adjudication based thereupon cannot sustain. 11. As a result of entire above di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
