2015 (4) TMI 202

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssioner, vide which he has confirmed duty demand of Rs. 20.95 crores against M/s Triveni Glass Ltd . alongwith imposition of penalty of Rs. 21.25 crores approximately. In addition, penalties of different amount stand imposed on the other applicants who are Managing Director, Deputy Managing Director and employees of M/s Triveni Glass Ltd. 2. After hearing Shri B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri Pramod Kumar, learned Jt. CDR for the Revenue, we find that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of sheet glass of various sizes and shapes. The appellant's factory was visited by the Central Excise officers on 16/07/1994 and a truck was found loaded with the sheet glass, in a ready to move condition. The good....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er taking into account the manufacturing process of the sheet glass as also the records maintained by the appellant at various stages of production, we note that the entire case of the Revenue is based upon the theoretical calculation of the alleged excess production. It is seen that the Revenue recorded the statement of three employees during the course of investigations and all the three gave different unit of capacity and production. The Revenue picked up the maximum stated production by one of the employees and by ignoring the stated production by other deponents, calculated the theoretical production, which the appellant would have achieved. We find that the appellant had also mentioned their installed capacity in the balance sheet as ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing in theoretical calculations of production. There is virtually no evidence of procurement of excess raw material, conversion of the same into final product, clearance of the same through transporters and identification of the buyers and the consequent flow of money from the buyers to the appellants. It is well established, by catina of judgment that the allegations of clandestine removal cannot be upheld on the basis of surmises and conjunctures and are required to be established by production of positive and tangible evidence. In the present case, we do not even find, prima facie, preponderance of probabilities to conclude the allegations of clandestine removal against the assessee. 7. Apart from prima facie holding in favour of the ....