TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 166
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No. 64/Commissioner/GZB/2009 dated 24/12/2009 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Ghaziabad, therefore, they are taken together for decision. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants-assessee were engaged in the manufacture of different Automobile components, falling under Chapter Nos.84, 85, 82, 72, 87 & 39. They were also availing facility of Cenvat credit. The manufacturer-appellants factory was visited by Central Excise officers on 06.03.2006. The Officers also conducted verification of raw materials as well as final products. A panchnama was also drawn on 06.03.2006, the drawal of said panchnama continued upto Morning of 07.03.2006. The panchnama stated that the officers found shortages of r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imposed on the other two appellants. The appellants requested for cross examination of departmental officers and panch witnesses. However, the cross examination of Panch witnesses Shri Baboo Kumar Chindalia S/o Shri Ram Phal and Shri Om Kumar S/o Shri Suraj Mal was conducted on 07.12.2009. The appellant submitted reply to the show cause notice and submitted before the Original Authority that Shri Om Kumar had deposed in his cross examination that he was not called by the officers for witnessing the search on 06.03.2006 and that he was stopped by the officers when he was carrying iron scrap in a trolley near the store room and that he further deposed that the raw materials were not weighted in his presence nor he was shown any weighment slip....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the revenue to bring on record positive and conclusive evidence to prove by proper investigation and evidence in regard to the persons to whom the alleged clandestinely removed raw materials had been sold, when and how transported, how was the consideration received and utilized without accountal. They have also relied on the following decisions in support of their contention:- CCE Vs Brims Products (2011) 271 ELT 184 (Pat.); Union of India Vs MSS Foods Ltd. (2011) 264 ELT 165 (MP); CCE Vs Vishwa Traders Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 287 ELT 243 (Guj.); Mahavir Polyplast Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE (2013) 287 ELT 139 (Tri.); CCE Vs Silvertone Papers Ltd. (2013) 287 ELT 478 (Tri.); Kothari Pouches Vs. CCE (2001) 135 ELT 531 (Tri.); Kuber Tobacco Produ....