TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 397
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sioner (Appeals-I/II), Raipur. The brief facts of the case relevant to the present appeals are that M/s Chakra Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. who are engaged in the manufacture of Rolled Iron and Steel products liable to Central Excise duty, were suspected to have indulged in issuing only invoices without actual sale and movement of finished goods. After detailed investigation, mainly with transporters, the Revenue came to the conclusion that 902.182 M.T. of finished goods and 631.295 M.T. of various inputs (raw materials) have been shown to have been cleared by the assessee without actual manufacture and clearance. It was also concluded that equivalent quantity of finished goods and inputs have been clandestinely manufactured/ cleared as such wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spondent. He submitted that the evidences available will support the finding that the main respondent did issue only invoices without actual clearance and transportation of cenvatable items as well as inputs as such. 4. The learned Counsel for the main respondent submitted that : (a) there is no clarity in the allegation made by the Revenue either in the show cause notice or in the original findings. The admitted facts are that the main respondent/ assessee have discharged the indicated Central Excise duty of Rs. 42,07,444/- for which they issued due invoices and maintained all statutory accounts ; (b) the Department's case is there is no physical clearance of either finished goods or inputs as such. With th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....When the case against the main respondent was found to be unsustainable it follows that there is no impediment for them in availing the legally eligible credit. 6. Heard both the sides and examined the appeal records. At the outset it is to be pointed out that the original allegation and the present appeal which was based on such allegation present propositions which are peculiar and contradictory. The case of the Revenue is that based on detailed investigation it is established that the main respondent did not physically clear the impugned quantities of finished goods and the inputs as such and only issued documents on the duty paid particulars. Hence, the conclusion is that these goods were not actually manufactured and cleared. Howeve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fferent set of identical goods had been manufactured and clandestinely removed from the factory alongwith an identical set of inputs and for which accommodation invoices had been issued to the purchasers. If this is what the lower authority meant then he has to answer two instead of one question. Firstly, what happened to goods on which duty had been paid where did these disappeared? Secondly, where did the second set of clandestinely removed goods find their way. There is not an iota of evidence supporting such a proposition in the show cause notice. There is nothing as well on the impugned order. Thus in the absence of any evidence adduced by the Department, it cannot be concluded that the appellants manufactured two sets of goods a....