2002 (9) TMI 751

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of coated cotton fabrics and coated man-made fabrics. Grey fabrics were being procured by them from the market and that the fabrics were subjected to coating with PVC compound. Investigation in the affairs of the company were undertaken by the department. These investigations revealed that during the period 23-6-84 to 11-2-85 the appellants had received a total quantity of 274432 metres of cotton fabrics, but they were not entered in in Form IV register. It was alleged by issue of show cause notice that these cotton fabrics were coated and removed without payment of duty. The Commissioner decided the issue as indicated above. When the matter came earlier before the T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... manufacture and thereafter removal of the goods by the assessee. This burden cannot be discharged only by raising assumptions and presumptions from the stray pieces of evidence collected by the excise department. This burden has to be discharged by adducing some cogent and tangible evidence. The co-relation of the alleged raw material received with the actual manufacture and removal of the goods in a clandestine manner, has to be established by the Revenue. But, in our view, in the present case the Revenue has failed to do so. There is no reliable evidence on the record to prove that polyester blended yarn had been cleared by the appellants in the guise of cotton yarn during the years 1994 to 1997. From the mere receipt of the alleged cut ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... department has not brought any evidence on record to prove this allegation. It was therefore, prayed that the appeal may be allowed. 7. Shri Mewa Singh, ld. SDR submits that the admitted position was that grey fabric was received in the factory of the appellant and no accounts of their sale etc. was produced by the appellant in form IV register. He, therefore, submits that once the fabrics were recorded in the records of the appellant their despatch or return should have been also indicated. He submits that in the absence of this documentary evidence the authorities below have rightly held that there was clandestine manufacture and clandestine removal. 8. We have considered the rival submissions. On careful consideration of....