TMI Blog2005 (1) TMI 162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the company, at the relevant time. The duty against the company has been confirmed for having removed the finished goods during the period in dispute i.e. 31-1-1999 to 19-2-2000 in a clandestine manner without payment of duty as well as under the cover of parallel invoices. Some part of the duty amount has been confirmed against the company in respect of the scrap cleared by it without payment of duty. Against other appellants, penalties have been confirmed for having assisted the company in the clandestine removal of goods as well as scrap. 3.The learned Counsel has contended that there is no tangible evidence on record to prove the clandestine manufacture and removal of the finished goods as well as scrap by the company during the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rances in condensed manner during the period in dispute to various buyers and also of the material sent for weighment and the raw material received for the manufacture of the goods during that period by the company. All the entries detailed in Annexure A, had also been shown in Annexure B. The details of the raw material received by the company had been given in Annexure C prepared from the notebook mentioned at Sl. No. 4 of the resumption memo. But it is quite evident even from the impugned order itself that certain entries made in all the five seized notebooks tallied with the invoices issued under Rule 52A, by the company at the time of clearances of the goods. The entries in the notebooks mentioned at Sl. Nos. 4 and 5 of the resumption ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... himself had no knowledge about the destination at which the goods were sent by the company. 7.From the perusal of the impugned order (para 2.17), it is also evident that entries in the notebook mentioned at Sl. No. 4 of the resumption memo, regarding the clearances of the goods (1897 kgs of aluminium foils) during the period 31-1-1999 to 19-2-2000, were found to be correct as those clearances was made by the company against the invoices issued under Rule 52A. However, the observations of the adjudicating authority that the balance quantity of the aluminium foils, as recorded in the seized notebooks, were cleared without payment of duty, cannot be accepted for want of any tangible evidence to corroborate the same. The testimony of Shri L. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny. These reports were collected at the back of the company and could not be read in evidence without affording to the company an opportunity to challenge the correctness of the same. Secondly, even according to these reports, the goods were supplied by the company against invoices which tallied with the entries made in the notebooks detailed in the resumption memo and tabulated in annexures A to D. Even the report given by the AC of the Sales Tax Department, vide letter dated 11-5-2000 about the vehicles of the company which crossed their check post, showed the entries tabulated in annexures A and D showing the clearances of the goods, were correct. 9.Regarding the clearances of the goods through parallel invoices Nos. 95 and 96 in a cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
