TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 209
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en us to the order of the Commissioner which reads as under: "207. Another chart (Annexure-B) showing unauthorized production and clearance of Jayanti brand Gutkha pouches, of M.R.P. Re.1/- each, during the undeclared hours of production i.e. from 05.30 A.M. to 07.00 A.M. from 10.03.08 to 18.03.08 was prepared on the spot. As per this chart the assessee have manufactured 11,66,400 Nos. of Jayanti brand Gutkha pouches, of M.R.P. Re.1/- each involving assessable value of Rs. 5,83,200/-, in violation of declared timings of the shift and removed the same without payment of duty amounting to Rs. 3,96,459/- (Cenvat duty Rs. 2,91,600/- NCCDRs 58,320/-, A.Ed Rs. 34,992/-, Ed.Cess Rs. 7698/- & S & H.E. Cess Rs. 3849/-).Sh. Tarachand appeared his signatures in token or correctness of this annexure also. 229.06 Moreover, during the physicl verification of raw material the officers also found shortage in raw materials and packing materials which has also been admitted to be used in the manufacture of the seized 57600 pouches manufactured beyond the declared working hours. Besides, whether checking he records maintained by the assessee the officers also found that on various dates wither r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alty was deleted. 6. The aforesaid narration clearly goes to show that findings reached by the Tribunal are findings of fact and does not give rise to question of law. 7. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed." 6. He has also relied upon the decisions of Madras High Court in: 1. D.V.Kishore vs. Commr. Of Cus. (Seaports- Imports), Chennai, 2017 (350) E.L.T. 527 (Mad.), wherein it has been observed:- 26. It is also the findings on the part of the Tribunal to state that there was no effective and reliable denial on the part played by the appellant either in the proceedings before the Commissioner or before the Tribunal. 27. In fact, the appellant had started retracting his statement of confession itself from the beginning and when that being so, such a finding as has been given by the Tribunal, would not stand in the legal scrutiny. The further reasons given by the Tribunal is that, even though the only defence apparently was that the statements had been retracted, the seizure of gold and the consensual deposition by other witnesses implicating the appellant and therefore, the same cannot be ignored. 2. S.M.A. Siddique vs. Government of India, 1989 (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal like the Transport Authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act." 3. Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Omkar Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd., 2010 (259) E.L.T. 687 (Guj.), wherein it has been observed:- 2. The facts of the case stated briefly are that the Respondent is engaged in the business of processing of cotton fabrics and man made fabrics falling under Chapter 52, 54 and 55 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The factory premises of the Respondent came to be searched on 9-7-2003. According to the Appellant, during the course of search, on physical verification of finished processed cotton fabrics and man made fabrics at the various stages of processing i.e., bleaching, dyeing, printing, finishing, packed in HDPE bags on comparison with recorded stock, a shortage of 175178 L. mtrs. of processed MMF valued at Rs. 31,53,204/- involving Central excise duty of Rs. 3,15,329/- was detected. Accordingly, a panchnama came to be drawn recording the said facts. Statement of a Director of the Company, Shri Rajnikant Omkarmal Agarwal also came to be recorded, under Section 14 of the Act, wherein apart from several other admissions, he admitted the contents of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....int out any evidence to the contrary, in support of the case of the revenue as regards shortage of material or clandestine removal of goods. Thus, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is based solely upon concurrent findings of fact recorded by all the authorities below. In absence of any perversity being pointed out in the findings recorded by the Tribunal, it is not possible to state that the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is, in any manner unreasonable so as to warrant interference. A case of clandestine removal of goods has to be made out on facts which find corroboration from the material on record. In absence of any corroborative material, no demand could have been raised merely on the basis of a statement recorded under Section 14 of the Act, which had been subsequently retracted. 4. Continental Cement Company vs. Union of India, 2014 (309) E.L.T. 411 (All.), wherein it has been observed:- 12. Further, unless there is clinching evidence of the nature of purchase of raw materials, use of electricity, sale of final products, clandestine removals, the mode and flow back of funds, demands cannot be confirmed solely on the basis of presumptions and assumptions. ....