Shri Govind Ram Bhojak., M/s. Hanut Industries Ltd Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Jaipur
Central Excise
2018 (6) TMI 782 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 1-6-2018
Excise Appeal No. 2993-2994 of 2005 SM – A/52121-52122/2018-SM[BR]
Central Excise
Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Ms. Surabhi Sinha, Advocate for the Appellants
Shri P Juneja, AR for the Respondent
Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa:
Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of same impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals).
2. As per facts on record, M/s. Hanut Industries is engaged in the manufacture of PET performs and PET bottles falling under Chapter 39. Their factory was visited by Ce
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
factory for manufacture of bottles. Shri Govind Ram Bhojak, authorized signatory of M/s. Vishal Packaging Industries, in his statement dated 17.8.2001 deposed that during the period 1999-2000, they were manufacturing bottles from the premises of one M/s. V K Enterprises by taking their premises and machines on rent basis and during the period 2000-2001, they manufactured PET bottles from the premises of M/s. Tambi Powerloom on rent basis.
5. The officers made inquiries at the end of M/s. V K Enterprises and M/s. Tambi Powerloom whereas it was found that M/s. V K Enterprises had entered into a rental contract with M/s. Vishal Packaging Industries for the period 1999-2000. The proprietor of M/s. Tambi Powerloom Ltd. also agreed that he has p
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Sinha, learned representative of the appellant and Shri P Juneja, learned representative of the Revenue, I find that the entire case of the Revenue is based upon the sole factor that M/s. Vishal Packaging Industries could not establish that during the relevant period, they had entered into an agreement with either M/s. V K Enterprises and M/s. Tambi Powerloom Ltd. This factor by itself cannot lead to conclusion that present appellant had cleared PET bottles in the guise of PET preform without payment of duty. It is well settled law that allegations and findings of clandestine removal are required to be made on the basis of positive evidence and cannot be upheld merely on doubts. There is virtually no evidence on record to show as to who wer
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =