TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (1) TMI 417
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. The Adjudicating Authority, in his OIO No. 28/2000, dated 28-2-2000 confirmed the duty demand and imposed penalties. He confiscated the Plant and Machinery but, gave an option to the Respondent to redeem the goods on payment of fine of Rs. 50,000/-. The Respondent approached the Commissioner (Appeals), who passed the impugned order. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the respondent by setting aside the order of the Additional Commissioner. 3. Aggrieved over the impugned order, the Revenue has filed this appeal on the following grounds:- (i) It is submitted that in the present case, Sri M. Mohan Rao, Director of M/s. M.R. Plastics & Polymers (P) Ltd., in his statement dated 16-2-95, "When....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case. (a) In the case of Rajasthan Foam (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner as reported in 2000 (118) E.L.T. (A244) in Civil Appeal (D. No. 19265 of 1999), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India upheld the Tribunal Order that the charge of clandestine removal is proved on the basis of File No. 2 written in hand writing of the Director. (b) In the case of Shelu Dyeing & Printing Mills v. Commissioner, Surat - 2003 (152) E.L.T. 352 (Tri.-Mumbai), the Hon'ble CEGAT held that the fact that a private record has come into existence in the factory goes to show that the owner of the property or the person in whose possession the factory is there, ought to have explained the existence of the same as he ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e norm of production. 4. Shri K. Sambi Reddy, the learned JDR, appeared on behalf of Revenue and Shri K. Rajendran, the learned Advocate, for the Respondent. 5. The learned Counsel for the Respondent Shri K. Rajendran, urged the following points :- (i) The Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the whole case is built on the basis of some private records found at the time of visit of the Officers and the same is not corroborated by other piece of positive evidence such as excess consumption/purchase of raw materials, excess consumption of electricity, production sold without invoice, etc. (ii) There were mainly two allegations. The first one is that the appellants cleared a quantit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cted goods, the respondent purchased 9 MTs of raw material on 31-7-1994 for which Modvat credit of duty was not availed. Thus, out of 10,542.36 Kgs. supplied to M/s. Muppaneni Diary (P) Ltd., 9 MTs pertain to aforesaid returned duty paid goods. Remaining quantity of 1,542.36 Kgs. is remade goods. (iv) The removal mentioned in Annexures II & III of the Show Cause Notice cannot be sustained as the Show Cause Notice itself admits that the supplies were presumably made to Govt., undertakings, which do not entertain goods without duty paying documents. Moreover, the allegations are based on Private Production Registers maintained by the appellants. There are duty paying documents for the clearances that are made out of the productio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p; Suvarna Polymers Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad - 2000 (120) E.L.T. 148 (T) (c) Chemco Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad - 2005 (191) E.L.T. 856 (T) (d) Dalmia Vinyls Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad - 2005 (192) E.L.T. 606 (T) (e) Kedarnath Silk Mills v. CCE, Hyderabad - 2006 (195) E.L.T. 58 (T) (f) Someshwara Cements & Chemicals Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad - 2005 (191) E.L.T. 1062 (T) 6. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. The Show Cause Notice issued appears to contain 3 Annexures. However, Revenue, when they filed the Paper Book, have enclosed the Show Cause Notice dated 4-10-1995 without any annexures.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Accountant has accepted the fact that there were some instances where the finished goods were despatched without payment of duty and without Gate Pass. In these circumstances, we hold that the Respondent is liable to discharge duty of Rs. 73,374.82 attributable to the quantity of 10542.36 Kgs. cleared to M/s. Muppaneni Diary (P) Ltd. 6.1 As regards the quantities mentioned in the other Registers there is practically no proper finding by the Adjudicating Authority. While the Show Cause Notice is a 14 page document, the finding of the Adjudicating Authority is in just 3 short paragraphs. The facts, the evidences and the submissions of the Respondent have not been properly brought out by the Adjudicating Authority. The investigation i....