TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (11) TMI 472
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iginal authority, in his order dated 23-10-1997, has confirmed a demand of Rs. 9,80,678.85 on the ground that that the appellants had indulged in clandestine removal of excisable goods. Further, a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- has been imposed. The period of dispute is from June, 1990 to August, 1993. The Commissioner (Appeals), in the impugned order, has upheld the OIO in toto. The appellants strongly challenge the impugned order. 3. Shri S. Raghu, the learned Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellants and Shri Anil Kumar, the learned JDR, for the Revenue. 4. The learned Advocate said that the allegation of clandestine removal is based on the difference between production report and RG-1 only. He said that whatever appears in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in English allegedly showing clearance - Scribe not examined - Person maintaining records knowing only Tamil not admitting to contents of note book - Cross-examination of partner of assessee firm and their submissions indicating that note book and entries therein did not pertain to or co-related to goods manufactured by them - Corroborative evidence in form of receipt of raw materials, manufacturing details, use of electricity, sale of goods and receipt of money not produced and no further investigation carried out by department - Clandestine removal held not proved - Erstwhile Rules 9(2) and 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. [para 9] Demand - Clandestine removal - Proof - Private note books of employee showing production cannot be so....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsignees but sufficient material produced by assessee by way of certificates from them supported by factum of payments made through bank drafts ‑ Charge of clandestine removal made on surmises and presumptions without substantial evidence on record and without verification not sustainable - Confiscation and penalty set aside - Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 and erstwhile Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. [para 7] Clandestine removal - Evidence - Corroboration - Statements - It was incumbent on seizing officer to record statements of workers operating the deep freezers, centrifugals installed in factory and distillation plant in trading unit - Section 14 of Central Excise Act, 1944. (v) AAR Kay Industries v.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r to whom payment made by cheque - Charge of clandestine manufacture and removal not established - Demand not sustainable - Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 9(2) of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. (vii) New India Dyeing & Finishing Mills v. CCE, Chandigarh-II - 2004 (165) E.L.T. 316 Demand - Clandestine removal - Allegation based merely on basis of recovered sale bills and recorded statements from buyers - Sale bills recovered by department not compared with description figuring in bills relating to recorded sale of processed fabrics - Persons whose statements relied on, not made available for cross-examination - Unaccounted production alleged to be 80% of the total production but excess of raw materia....