TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 1469
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and no discrepancy was found. Thereafter, the Central Excise Officers recovered various records and documents and also recorded the statement of Shri Joginder Sharma, Excise Supervisor and Shri Radheshyam T. Rathi, Chairman & Director of the Respondent Company. A Show Cause Notice dt.23.11.2004 was issued, proposing demand of duty of Rs. 25,47,084.00 along with interest and to impose penalties on the Respondent Company and its Director. The Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 25,47,084.00 alongwith interest and imposed penalty of equal amount of duty on the Respondent Company. It has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on Shri Radheshyam T. Rathi, Director of the Respondent Company (Respondent No.2). By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Adjudication order. Hence, the Revenue filed these appeals against the Respondent Company and its Chairman-Cum-Director (Respondent No.2). 3. The learned Authorised Representative on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the grounds of appeal and the findings of the Adjudicating authority. He submits that in this case, one chit was recovered from the pocket of Shri Joginder Sharma, Excise Supervisor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....500 (Guj.) iii) CCE Vs Vishwa Traders Pvt.Ltd.-2013 (287) ELT 243 (Guj.) iv) CCE Vs Omkar Textile Mills Pvt.Ltd.-2010 (259) ELT 687 (Guj.) v) Commissioner Vs Vikram Cement (P) Ltd-2014 (303) ELT A 82 (All.) vi) Arya Fibres Pvt.Ltd Vs CCE Ahmedabad-III-2014 (311) ELT 529 (Tri-Ahmd) vii) Laxmi Engg. Works Vs CCE Delhi-2002 (239) ELT 573 (Tri-Del.) viii) Rawalwasia Ispat Udyog Ltd Vs CCE Delhi-2005 (186) ELT 465 (Tri-Del.) 5. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find from the impugned order that the Respondents were engaged in the manufacture of Man Made Fabrics on job work basis. According to the Revenue, the Respondent cleared clandestinely a quantity of 1107428 L.Mtrs. fabrics within 17/18 dates. The entire case was made out on the basis of one chit recovered from the pocket of Excise Supervisor of the Respondent Company. The main contention of the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue is that the Excise Supervisor and Respondent No.2 in their statements accepted the clearance of the goods on the basis of chit. On perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the Central Excise Supervisor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of goods was available from the stocks in the event of clandestine removal of the goods. The entire case was made on the basis of one chit recovered from the pocket of Excise Supervisor. It is noticed that the Excise Supervisor had retracted his statement. In this situation, it is difficult to accept the clandestine removal of the goods on the basis of the said chit, without any corroborative evidence. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also examined the case in the context of that no statement was recorded of the Dyeing Master or Printing Master. The relevant portion of the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) are reproduced below:- "16. It is alleged that the details on paper slip reflect that illicit clearances of goods manufactured under the supervision of different Dyeing Masters such as Murali Master, Gupta Master etc., but there is complete silence in the investigation regarding the source of figures, reflected on the paper. It has not been brought out in investigation whether the Dyeing Masters verbally communicated those figures to Shri Joginder Sharma for recording in alleged page or the figures were communicated on the basis of some written statement. It is furt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "7. As can be noted from the decision of the Tribunal,? it has extensively dealt with the entire factual matrix presented before it. The Tribunal rightly concluded that in the case of clandestine removal of excisable goods, there needs to be positive evidences for establishing the evasion, though contended by the Revenue. In absence of any material reflecting the purchase of excessive raw material, shortage of finished goods, excess consumption of power like electricity, seizure of cash, etc., the Tribunal noted and held that there was nothing to bank upon except the bare confessional statements of the proprietor and of some of the persons connected with the manufacturing activities and such statements were retracted within no time of their recording. The Tribunal also noted the fact that the requisite opportunity of cross-examination was also not made available so as to bring to the fore the true picture and therefore, it concluded against the Revenue observing that not permitting the cross-examination of a person in-charge of records of M/s. Sunrise Enterprises and absence of other cogent and positive evidences, would not permit it to sustain the demand of Rs. 1.85 Crores raised....