TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (4) TMI 587
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icers intercepted a truck loaded with the said goods accompanied with Invoice No. 63 dated 7-1-2005 of the Respondent-Company. On verification of the loaded truck, it was found excess quantity of 11,500 Kgs. over and above the quantity shown in the invoice. The Central Excise Officers visited the Respondents' factory and found one "Lotus Notebook". Shri Jawahar, Supervisor of the Respondents Company in his statement stated that the Notebook relates to clearance of the goods from the factory. On 11-1-2005, Respondent No. 2, Director of the Respondent No. 1 appeared before the Central Excise Officers and produced Invoice No. 64 dated 7-1-2005 in respect of the excess quantity of 11,500 Kgs. and his statement was recorded. Again on 12-5-2005, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No. 976-979/2005-Ex dated 30-11-2005. 3. Ld. Advocate on behalf of the Respondent reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that the Adjudicating Authority observed that the maintenance of Notebook by the Supervisor was reasonably expected but the Investigating Authority did not verify the contention of the Supervisor with the Respondent No. 2. He further submits that the there is no iota of evidence of clandestine removal of goods and the Respondents had no knowledge of the Notebook. He drew the attention of the Bench to the Annexure to the show cause notice in support of his contention that the entries made in the Notebooks are vague. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of D.P. Industrie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oboration of the statement of supervisor. In this connection, the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) is reproduced below :- "9. As regards, computation of figures of clandestine removal of 2,22,836.200 Kg. Lead ingots during 2003-2004 and 2004-205 on the basis of private record, leading to central excise duty demand worth Rs. 917553/-. I observe that the department has computed the said demand duty on the basis of private record and statement of supervisor. I also observe that the Appellant has contended that, the said private record does not belong to them. Figures shown in the said private records are not based on facts, they pointed out entry no. 10, 12, 14 and 15 from the chart for the year 2003-2004 and entry no. 12 and 14 from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty of moulding ingots/slabs of standard weight of 23 Kg. with a variation of plus or minus one or two kgs. It has further been contended that if the quantity is ascertained multiplying by 23 kgs. per piece of ingot, the quantity comes more than reflected in the Notebook. Therefore, the entries made in the Notebook are vague and not reliable. In support of this, the ld. Advocate drew the attention of the Bench to some of the entries as recorded in Annexures to the show cause notice as under :- (a) Annexure A(1), Sl. No. 10, dated 23-2-2004 Note Book indicates 132 pieces = 12934.900 Kgs. Ld. Advocate submits that 132 pieces x 23 Kgs., the quantity comes to 30....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No. 2, at this regard and there is no other corroborative evidence on record to show the clandestine removal of the finished goods on the basis of Note Book. In any event, the demand of duty on the basis of a Note Book maintained by the employee, who is not authorized person and is not corroborative with any evidence, is unjust, improper and unreasonable. The Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of D.P. Industries (supra) held that high probability of existence of clandestine clearance of strong suspicion cannot take place of evidence. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below :- "No doubt, the appellants have been stone-walling the investigation by not revealing the facts but it is for the investigation to ado....