TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 500
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....29/ADC-PS/OA/2006, dt.28.12.2006, except allowing the appeal of the Appellant with respect to redemption fine as no seizure of the goods was effected by the Department. 2. Shri P.M. Dave, learned Advocate and Shri N.J. Gheewala, learned Consultant appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Shri P.M. Dave, learned Advocate argued that M/s Kanaiya Textile is a 100% EOU and Shri Shyam Sunder Arora is the Proprietor of this 100% EOU. That the Appellant obtained a 100% EOU licence for the premises located at Plot No.16-17, Hari Ichcha Industrial Estate, Behind M. Jagdamba Mills, A.K. Road, Surat. That the Appellant obtained 63,598.87 kgs of Textured Filament Yarn valued at Rs. 37,58,247.00 duty free under 25 ARE3. That after undertaking the process....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, C & C.Ex., Hyderabad-I, under OIO No. No.26/2005, dt.29.11.2005 against M/s AGFPL, as obtained under RTI application, there is no ambiguity that the goods manufactured by the Appellant has reached the destination. 3. Shri S.K. Shukla, learned Authorised Representative appearing on behalf of the Revenue made the Bench go through Para 12 to 18 of the OIO dt.28.12.2006, to argue that during investigation, the address declared by the Appellant was visited by the officers of Central Excise and that some other units were working at the declared premises. That the statements of various persons working in those units clearly state that they do not know Shri Shyam Sunder Arora, Proprietor of the Appellant and that no goods are manufactured at....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dabad [1996 (82) ELT 129 (Tribunal)] ii) Raj Petroleum Products Vs CCE Mumbai-I [2005 (192) ELT 806 (Tri-Mum)] 5. Heard both the sides and perused the case records. The issue involved in the present appeal is whether any goods were manufactured by the Appellant at Plot No.16-17, Hari Ichcha Industrial Estate, Behind M. Jagdamba Mills, A.K. Road, Surat or not. It is the case of the Appellant that out of duty free yarn, grey fabrics was manufactured at this address and the same was supplied to M/s AGFPL. Appellant relied upon the re-warehousing certificates issued by the jurisdictional Central Excise officers incharge of the consignee and also one adjudication order, dt.29.11.2005 issued by the Commissioner, Cusoms, & Central Excise, Hy....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of M/s AGFPL cannot be taken as a proper documentary evidence of the rewarehousing of goods. There is no evidence on record produced by the Appellant as to how the goods were transported from Surat to Medak (A.P.). The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant has relied upon the OIO No.26/2005, dt.29.11.2005 issued by Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise. Hyderabad, under which the demand with respect to the ARE3 issued by the Appellant has been confirmed. On going through the OIO No.26/2005, dt.29.11.2005, it is observed that Shri D. Siva Rama Krishna, Authorised Signatory of M/s AGFPL in his statement dt.01.05.2002, inter alia, stated that their factory was working since March 2002 onwards and that all records prior to 0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he decision of R.P. Industries Vs Collr. Of Customs, Ahmedabad 1996 (82) ELT 129 (Tribunal) (supra) in support of their contention that the documentary evidence should be preferred over the oral statement recorded by the investigating agency. A careful reading of this order indicates that in the case before CESTAT Mumbai, the issue was whether the Appellant in that case imported complete 10 Draw Texturising Machine components. Appellant M/s R.P. Industries in these produced certain invoices to show local purchase of some items which have also gone into manufacture of Draw Texturing Machine. It was in that factual matrix that CESTAT Mumbai delivered the judgment that documentary evidence should be preferred over the oral submissions. The sam....