TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 291
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the manufacture of aluminium shapes/profiles, billets, logs etc. 3. On the basis of some incriminating documents recovered on 4.12.2012 from one M/s Raman Metals and M/s Kuchchal Light Metal Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Sunshine Marketing, who are traders of aluminium products and, the factory premises of the present appellant was also searched on 20.2.2013 along with the search of their residence of their Director Shri Girish Kumar Sojatiya. 4. On the basis of the evidences collected during the investigations and the statements of various persons, show cause notice dated 8.7.2014 was issued to the appellants proposing confirmation of demand of Rs. 14,91,848/-, denial and recovery of Cenvat credit of Rs. 4,83,079/- along with confirmation of int....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nically and no goods were despatched under such invoices. On the other hand, the appellate authority has observed that the said invoices raised by the appellant, which are parallel invoices showed removal of a particular quantity of goods to their buyers. The two buyers i.e. M/s Om industries and M/s Nakoda Anodizing Centre have confirmed receipt of the goods from the appellant whereas the third customer M/s Patidar Impex was found to be non-existent inasmuch as the address given therein was found to be fake and turned out to the residential premises some independent person. Further, the appellants authorised representative, in his statement has accepted the fact of clearance of goods under the fake parallel invoices. 7. I find that admi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orate by sufficient evidence, cannot be adopted for holding against them. I find that the demand on the said ground stands confirmed only on the basis of difference in the invoice weight and the packing list weight, without there being any other evidence of clandestine manufacture of excess goods and their clearances. Though, such factory may raise doubt against the appellant but cannot take place of evidence so as to confirm the demand. Accordingly, I set aside the same. 9. Demand of Rs. 95,345/- is based on alleged excess consumption of aluminium scrap which according to Revenue was transferred from their daily stock account i.e. RG-1 register but not entered in their Form-IV register. This fact, by itself, does not lead to the inevita....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... any corroborative evidence, is well established. Reference can be made to Hon'ble Allahabad High Court decision in the case of Continental Cement Company Vs. Union of India - 2014 (309) ELT 411 (All.) as also Tribunal's decision in the case of Raipur Forging Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur-I - 2016 (335) ELT 297 (Tri.- Del.), CCE & ST, Raipur Vs. P.D. Industries Pvt. Ltd. - 2016 (340) ELT 249 (Tri.-Del.) and CCE & ST, Ludhiana Vs. Anand Founders & Engineers - 2016 (331) ELT 340 (P&H). It stand held in all these judgements that the findings of clandestine removal cannot be upheld based upon the third party documents, unless there is clinching evidence of clandestine manufacture and removal of the goods. Accordingly, I set aside the said demand al....