2018 (6) TMI 782 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI – Clandestine removal – 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. – Held that:- 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 were the transporters and buyers of cl
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
nvolving duty of ₹ 22,525/- were detected, which the appellants accepted and paid the duty. The said issue is not under challenge. 3. Further, it was found that the appellants were sending PET performs, manufactured by them to their job worker M/s. Vishal Packaging Industries in terms of Notification No. 83/95-CE dated 11.4.1994. The said performs were being further used by M/s. Vishal Packaging Industries for manufacture of PET bottles. 4. The factory of M/s. Vishal Packaging Industries was also visited by the officers on 17.8.2001 and it was found that there was no machinery installed in their factory for manufacture of bottles. Shri Govind Ram Bhojak, authorized signatory of M/s. Vishal Packaging Industries, in his statement dated
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
there was no rent agreement with the said units and as such, entertained a view that M/s. Vishal Packaging Industries was not manufacturing the bottles, which were actually manufactured by the appellant and were cleared in the guise of preforms. 6. On the above basis, proceedings were initiated against the appellant alleging clandestine removal of the PET bottles and proposing to confirm the duty along with interest and imposition of penalties. The proceedings resulted in passing of present impugned orders. Hence, the present appeal. 7. After hearing both the sides, duly represented by Ms. Surabhi Sinha, learned representative of the appellant and Shri P Juneja, learned representative of the Revenue, I find that the entire case of the Reve
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =