TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 109
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... India Pvt. Ltd. are engaged in the manufacture of different types of Footwear Shri Subhash Chander Gupta is the Managing Director of the said manufacturing unit and Shri K.K. Goel is Authorized Signatory. Shri Sandeep Kumar is over all incharge of Unit. 3. As per facts on record the appellant factory was visited by the Central Excise officers on 01.07.2013, who conducted various checks and verifications. As a result, various varieties of footwear were found in excess of the recorded balance, which were put under seizer. Said seized goods stand confiscated in the impugned adjudication order of the authorities below with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant is not contestin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-2000 182212 177688 4524 2. 2000-2001 298081 292840 5241 3. 2001-2002 543724 515274 28450 4. 2002-2003 648173 634533 13640 Total 1672190 1620335 51855 Above figures were stated to have been provided by Shri Subhash Chander Gupta, M.D. of the firm vide his statement 15.09.2003. He explained the difference of 51,855 inner boxes and stated that in the year 1999-2000,2000-2001,2001-2002 and 2002-2003, 51855 pairs were manufactured in his three units and the raw materials consumed in the manufacture of footwear was purchased from local market against cash payment without bill and they had not accounted for the raw material so purchased and footwear manufactured in the books of accounts and they had cleared the foot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the details of the invoices under which such waste were cleared and had been duly accounted for in their balance sheets. They claimed that the wastage of inner boxes was to the tune of 2.5% of total purchase of inner boxes except for the Year 2001-2002 when the wastage came close to 5% due to rain water had flooded their basement resulting into higher wastage of all inputs including inner boxes. I observe that the demand raised on account of difference of inner boxes purchased and consumed in the manufacture justified by the reasons adduced by the appellant, is not sustainable. Keeping in view the factors submitted by the appellant for the wastage occurred during the manufacture I allow a reasonable wastage of 2.5% as claimed by the appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... wastage @ 5% in the 2000-2001, as claimed by the appellant has to be allowed or not. I find that apart from the fact of purchase of higher number of inner boxes, there is absolutely no other corroboration to the charge of clandestine removal. The Hon'ble P&H High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh Vs. Nachiketa Paper Ltd. [2008 (225) ELT 194 (P&H)] has held that demand of duty on the basis of short found raw material is on presumption of clandestine removal of the finished goods without any evidence of such clandestine removal and cannot be upheld. In the instant case also I find the entire case of the revenue is based upon the inner boxes purchased by the appellant during the last four or five years. There is ....