2017 (7) TMI 639

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ne of the appellant here, and the data retrieved from the Laptop of Shri Lalit Agarwal and Shri Vikas Varshney, CA/Accountant of the firm owned by Shri Kishore Aggarwal. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of packaged drinking water in 20 Litres jars under the brand name of 'Kimberley', which is owned by them. The appellant is also manufacturing packaged drinking water in the brand name Kingfisher which is owned by M/s. UB Limited. On their own manufactured goods, the appellant is not paying duty by availing the benefit of SSI exemption but on the goods manufactured in the brand name Kingfisher the appellant is paying duty and clearing the goods on payment of duty. M/s. Iceberg Foods Limi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....shney, CA/ Accountant of M/s. IFL/ M/s. IAPL. He submits that no procedure under Section 36B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has been followed, therefore, the said documents cannot be relied upon to demand duty. Moreover, the demand cannot be confirmed on the basis of the documents recovered from a third party, without any corroborative evidence, therefore, the impugned order is required to be set-aside. To support these contentions, ld. Counsel relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Modern Laboratories Vs. CCE, Indore - 2017-TIOL-1827-CESTAT-DEL. He also relied on the decisions in the case of Shivam Steel Corporation Vs. CCE, BBSR-II - 2016 (339) ELT 310 (Tri. Kolkata), Arya Fibers Pvt. Limited Vs. CCE, Ahmd. - 2014 (311) E....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e recovered from the possession of Shri Lalit Gupta, CA and Shri Vikas Varshney of M/s. IFL/IAPL. It is also a fact on record that no investigation was conducted at the end of the appellant and the transporters were also not investigated to reveal the truth whether the clandestinely removed goods from IFL/ IAPL were transported up to the place of appellants. As the evidence of clandestine removal of packaging material from the premises of IFL/IAPL, up to the place of appellant are missing, therefore, charge of clandestine removal is not sustainable against the appellant. Moreover, no evidence has been put-forth by the Revenue that the packing material supplied by IFL/IAPL were used in the excess manufactured goods by the appellant. In fact,....