TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (12) TMI 358
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ilipbhai Pansuriya. The period in dispute involved in the present case is from April 2001 to August 2004. The undisputed facts of the case are that the appellants started manufacturing Stainless Steel Belts and parts thereof for wrist-watches only from August 2002 and they were paying duties on the same thereafter and there is no dispute for the period August 2002 and thereafter. The dispute relates only to the period prior to August 2002. Prior to August 2002, the appellants were getting the S.S. Belts and parts thereof manufactured from various job workers and they were involved only in the trading activity and on receipt of the goods in question from the job workers they were selling the same to the various retailers. It is significant t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....purchase of raw materials and the sale of goods to the dealers during the period in question had been brought on records; that a third party documents cannot be deemed to be sufficient to establish the charges of the clandestine removal when no name of the appellants is figuring in the documents; the private records without due corroboration and correlation cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of establishing the clandestine removal; Shri Jasmin Pansuriya, the Proprietor of the appellants has immediately retracted the statement; that the ld. Counsel has failed to take into consideration the affidavits filed by the appellants; that the appellants were getting the work done by the job workers and as such the appellants are not t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he job workers produced before the Commissioner show that they carried out complete assembling and packing (page 145) of the appeal; that a certificate (page no. 144) shows that the other third parties were carrying out business of assembling bells as a regular trade practice has been produced; the details of the job workers payments were shown as at page no. 107; that the appellants have offered the Commissioner to cross-examine the job workers; that the ld. Counsel for the appellants laid great emphasis on the fact that the Commissioner has not disputed any of the aforesaid points in his impugned order but purely on conjectures and surmises on the basis that some activity like riveting and puffing may be required to be carried out after a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Commissioner's own findings which cannot be sustained in the absence of documentary evidence; that Annexure-II to the Show Cause Notice show certain transfers to M/s. Sonic are not of theirs as intermediatery stage products like biscuits and cuttings and hence their value cannot be included for demanding duty as they are not Belts or parts of Belts produced before the Commissioner to demonstrate the fact (at page no. 108) of the appeal; the ld. Commissioner, in para 6(e) of the impugned order, observed that these are parts of watch straps, bands & bracelets; to this ld. Counsel submitted that these were not the charges in the Show Cause Notice; therefore, the Commissioner cannot travel beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice. 6....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... statements of Shri Deepak with regard to the goods and the raw materials received in the factory. He submitted that the case is proved beyond doubt and this impugned order is liable to be sustained and the appeal dismissed. 8. After having carefully heard both sides and considering the records available, we, find, that there is no direct evidence on records to show that the appellants were in the activities of the manufacture before August 2002. The dropping of the demand by the Commissioner up to January 2002, itself, shows that the demand was erroneously raised against the appellants and once the Commissioner dropped the demand, the validity of the demand raised is surrounded by the serious doubts, needs to be reestablished throu....