2019 (1) TMI 1225 – CESTAT ALLAHABAD – TMI – Clandestine removal – SSI Exemption – no evidence produced by Revenue to prove clandestine activities – Held that:- The Revenue has not advanced any further evidence to show the clandestine activities of the respondents. It is well settled law that clandestine removal allegations are required to be established by sufficient and positive evidence and the same cannot be upheld on the basis of surmises and conjecture – demand cannot be upheld – appeal dismissed – decided against Revenue. – APPEAL No. E/70528/2017-EX[DB] – FINAL ORDER NO. – 70080/2019 – Dated:- 7-1-2019 – Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Mohd. Altaf (Asstt. Commr.) AR for Appellant Absent for Respondent ORDER Per: Archana Wadhwa Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. We have heard Shri Mohd. Altaf learned A.R. appearing for the Revenue. Nobody appeared for t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
cleared during November, 2012 to March, 2013 and during April, 2013 to June, 2013 was as under:- Nov 2012 to Mar 2013 – ₹ 4,23,28,368/- Apr 2013 to June 2013 – ₹ 4,95,68,976/- 3. The veracity of the said BST register was right away denied by the party and it was stated that said register is not a document maintained by the party. Accordingly, 4 show cause notices were issued to the party and subsequently the impugned Order-in-Original was passed confirming the demand of duty amounting to ₹ 46,35,990/- for the period 2011-12 to June 2013, ₹ 4, 94,997/- for the period July, 2013 to March, 2014 and ₹ 18,09,206/- for the period April, 2014 to December, 2014 under Section 11A(1), Central Excise Act, 1994. 4. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the confiscation of the manufactured finished goods i.e. 11,136 bottles of the packaged drinking water, kept in the party s office premises, valued at ₹ 91,872/- involving Central Excise duty of ₹ 11,355/- se
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
, Lucknow has discussed the case in detail and inter alia observed that:- a) Although, the register was recovered from the party s premises but the party has submitted that all records are kept in office in tally and is maintained by the accountant. The party has also stated that they have no knowledge about any of the entries made in any of the books resumed, as they do not maintain any record of any kind in the factory and they have no idea of any kind about any of these entries in the BST register and who has made them. b) Further, party has never accepted the ownership of register in his statements tendered before the department, rather claimed that the said register belong to loading persons and he produced the said person before raiding team on the day of search and he claimed that the raiding team was convinced with his explanation. c) The Commissioner (Appeals) find force in the statement of the party, as investigation & impugned order never challenged the statement of the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
t is settled law that the demand could not sustained only on the basis of private register recovered from the premises. This case is even more strong footing than the case laws stated supra, in the terms that it is not proved beyond doubt that register was being maintained either by party or by any of his employees. He further added that since the value of finished goods manufactured by the party has never exceeded the threshold limit of1.5 Crore & their factory is situated in rural area also, the party is eligible for SSI exemption even if they have manufactured goods bearing a brand of another person. e) Regarding the confiscation of the goods he observed that the goods were seized by the department under the belief that the goods were manufactured and kept in the unregistered premises with intent of removal of the same clandestinely without payment of duty. The party was quite eligible for the SSI exemption, for the period 2011-12 to 2013-14, there was no need to take registrati
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =