TMI Blog2005 (1) TMI 239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioned the goods were yet to be dispatched. No verification was conducted at the address of the parties whether any goods were received by them or not. He submits that the Commissioner should not have passed any order without conducting any investigation for clandestine removal. In the absence of any verification, no such charge is sustainable. He submits that the clandestine removal is a serious charge which is required to be proved by the Revenue by production of sufficient and tangible evidence. There must be absolute proof and not on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. He relies on the following decisions : (i) CCE v. Universal Polythelene Industries - 2001 (130) E.L.T. 228 (T); (ii) Durga Trading Company v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .); (iii) Srichakra Tyres Ltd. v. CCE - 1999 (108) E.L.T. 361 (T-LB); (iv) CCE v. M.K. Asokan - 2003 (151) E.L.T. A187. He submits that in the present case, the duty has been paid before issuance of show-cause notice. Therefore, the penalty and interest are not sustainable. He relies on the following decisions : (i) EID Parry (India) Ltd. v. CCE - 2003 (157) E.L.T. 193 (T); (ii) Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. CCE - 2003 (161) E.L.T. 285 (T). He, therefore, submits that the appeal may kindly be allowed. 3. Shri Madhiam supports the impugned order. 4. In the present case, the Commissioner, while passing the impugned order, has relied upon a Register where some entries were made without mentioning any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it could not also be said that noticee company clandestinely removed goods manufactured from stock found short. (paras 8, 9)" 6. It was held in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore v. Velavan Spinning Mills reported in 2004 (167) E.L.T. 91 (Tri. - Chennai) that the private note books and some statements relied by the Revenue were not sufficient for the charge of clandestine removal of the goods. Similar view was expressed in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Valan Beedi Works reported in 2004 (166) E.L.T. 133 (Tri. - Chennai). In the present case, the Revenue has relied on the private register and the papers. The entries contained in the Register are not sufficient to prove such charges. No evidences of use o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
