2015 (5) TMI 738

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nvestigation carried out by the DGAE, (SZU), it was revealed clandestine removal of 830.633 MTs of MS Rounds from M/s. Rawf Re-Rollers without payment of duty under the cover of bill trader's invoice during the period 01.04.1996 to 17.08.1996. After detailed investigation statements were recorded from the appellants, SCN was issued to M/s. Rawf Re-Rollers proposing duty on MS Rounds manufactured and cleared by them and also proposed to impose penalty on the appellants as well as on others. The adjudicating authority in his order confirmed the demand and also imposed equivalent penalty under Section 11 AC of the Act. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the appellants under Rule 173Q and also imposed personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d RI are sufficient to establish the clandestine removal of finished goods. 5. On perusal of the show cause notice and adjudication order, prima facie, we find that the investigating officers conducted search on the appellant's factory premises, three residence of individuals and drawn mahazar and recorded documents and also recorded statements from several individuals including the managing partners of the firms. However, there is not even a single record or document brought on record to correlate the allegation of illicit removal of M.S.Rounds from the appellant's factory to establish evasion of duty of Rs. 10,63,530/-. 6. As rightly held by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his impugned order the findings of the Adjudicating Author....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Revenue. One has to keep in mind that, though being the main ingredient, betel-nut is not the only raw material which is used in manufacture of Pan Masala. That apart, since the investigation has been carried only at the transporters end, no presumption could be drawn with regard to manufacture and removal of the final product. Presumptions and assumptions cannot take place of positive legal evidence, which are required for proving the charge. Even if, it is assumed that some raw materials were received at the factory of the respondent during the said period, the same cannot become conclusive proof of production and clandestine sale to different parties. Due to lack of positive evidence, benefit of doubt will always go in favour of the as....