TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (3) TMI 649
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... [Order]. - Being aggrieved with the order of Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has rejected the Revenue's appeal against the order of Astt. Commissioner, Revenue has filed further appeal before Tribunal. 2. After having heard both the sides and going through impugned order, I find that the appellant's factory was visited by the Central Excise officers on 7th and 8th May, 2003. During t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estigation of the case. The respondents were maintaining their stock as per RG1 register and lot register chapter-wise, the statutory records prescribed under the law. However, the stock was physically verified by the officers only variety-wise and details were provided in the Annexure 'B'. However, it is noticed that investigating officers have not given/mentioned the name of the record on the ba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has not been supported by any other evidence except the statements of Shri Jagdishbhai V. Patel, Manager of the respondent firm. Revenue has cited the judgment of Kerori Engg. Works v. CCE, Delhi-I - 2004 (166) E.L.T. 373 (Tri.-Delhi-I) and also CCE, Chandigarh v. Vimal Alloys Ltd. - 2004 (168) E.L.T. 343 (Tri.-Delhi). On going through the case laws, I find that in both the cases departmental off....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....184) E.L.T. 165 (Tri.-Delhi) has held that "Clandestine removal - Evidence - Statement of Director and authorized signatory regarding receipt of raw material in a clandestine manner and manufacture of finished goods therefore, not a conclusive evidence in the absence of any other material, tangible evidence". In the case of CCE, Patna v. Universal Polyethylene Industries - 2001 (130) E.L.T. 228 (T....