AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 280
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....04 90 10, under its own brand name 'Accentrix'. The manufacturing facility of the Appellant is at WH-51, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Ph-I, New Delhi. The manufactured goods were cleared under Retails Invoices (RI) on payment of appropriate duty. 2. Apart from the aforesaid manufacturing activity, the appellant is also engaged in trading of the aforesaid goods from its premises located at 215, Vishwadeep Tower, Janakpuri, New Delhi. The trading goods never enter the manufacturing premises and the vice versa. The trading is done in relation to the goods imported by the Appellant on which appropriate customs duties have been paid. The traded goods were cleared by the Appellant under Trade Invoices (TI). 3. The appellant claimed that the go....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Appellant and cleared without payment of duty. It is pertinent to note that in the said order, the Commissioner did not give any evidence of clandestine manufacture, in the nature of procurement of raw materials, extra labour charges for manufacture, excess electricity consumption, shortage/ excess of raw material/ finished goods noticed during visit of the officers to the Appellant's premises, cash dealings. Aggrieved by the order the Appellant filed the appeal before the Hon'ble CESTAT-New Delhi. 7. Final Order No.326/2011-EX dated 21.03.2011 passed by the Hon'ble CESTAT-New Delhi, setting aside the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, New Delhi on the ground that the sole observation made by the Commissioner in the OIO to confir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t aside. Matter is remanded for denovo enquiry." 8. The impugned order passed by the Commissioner confirming the demand in violation of the remand directions, on account of which the present appeal has been filed by the Appellant. The following recorded by the Commissioner to confirm the demand against the appellant: i) Form 3CD, which is a part of tax audit report, issued by the Chartered Accountant of the Appellant does not mention that the appellant is engaged in trading of goods. ii) On the basis of comparison of bills of entry for imported goods with the Trade Invoices, it emerges that the goods sold in India were different from the imported goods. iii) Quantity wise import could not be matched with the traded goods in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....investigate the case by way of seeking fresh information issuing summons etc., which is legally untenable. iii) No corroborative evidence of purchase of raw material, dispatch of finished goods from the trading premises, actual disposal of the imported goods, etc. has been adduced by the Department. Since the demand has been confirmed merely on assumptions and presumptions, the same cannot be sustained. iv) Appellant also relied upon the Larger Bench case laws to support their arguments. 12. Heard arguments from both the sides and perused the records. 13. The basic allegation raised in the show cause notices is that the appellant, who was engaged in the manufacture of certain equipments, such as vibrators, converters, etc. were ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y demand. 14. The Department has alleged clandestine clearances on the part of the appellant by adopting the modus operandi of selling goods manufactured in the guise of imported / traded goods. Such a charge will need to be supported by tangible evidence regarding the manufacture of such goods in the factory. This will require corroborative evidence such as purchase of additional raw material, dispatch of finished goods to the trading premises etc. Further, the modus operandi also should be established to the effect that the manufactured goods have been sold in the guise of the imported goods. Unfortunately, we find that no such evidence has been placed on record by Revenue. The purpose of remanding the case by Tribunal was to enable th....