TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 649
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pect of Shri Harsh Kumar has already been decided by Final Order No. 63294-63300/2018 dated 25.10.2018, whereby this Tribunal had dismissed the appeal for the reason that the amount involved was only Rs. 10,00,000/- (Ten lakhs) less than the limit prescribed in litigation policy. 2.1 In the follow up Department summoned both the partners of Respondent viz Balbir Kumar and Harsh Kumar on various dates. As per Department in the said statements, though both of them did not admit clandestine manufacturing and clearance but evaded questions posed by the Investigating Officer; could not explain entries in the documents especially outward register; made wrong averments and did not furnish sale figures of knitted and non-knitted garments. 3. Revenue has assailed the Order-in-Appeal mainly on following grounds: (i) The Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly concluded that the Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the demand merely on assumption and presumption and there is no evidence whatsoever to support these findings. The Commissioner (Appeals) has not taken into the various evidences and corroborations taken on record in the Order-in-Original. (ii) The Commissioner (Appeals) has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he basis of outward register maintained by uneducated contractual employees employed by security contractor and that quantification of demand on presumptive consumption is otherwise also unsustainable in law. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel relied on various judgments submitted at bar. 4. Heard the parties, and also considered the rival submissions. 5. We find that the articles of apparels and clothing accessories, not knitted or crocheted falling under heading 6201 and 6202 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 were brought under Central Excise levy in the budget, 2001-02, however, the scheme was modified w.e.f 01.05.01 under the provisions of Notification Nos-16/2001-Central Excise (N.T.), 18/2001-Central Excise (N.T.) to 21/2001-Central Excise (N.T.), 21/2001-Central Excise to 23/2001-Central Excise, all dated 30.04.2001. The benefit of SSI excise duty exemption scheme was extended to the ready made garments of Ch.62 of the tariff under Notification No. 8/2001-C.E. (as amended) and 9/2001-C.E. (as amended) both dated 01.03.2001. Whereas, the tariff valuation @ 60% of the retail sale price was fixed for the articles of apparels and clot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion, learned Commissioner's findings on this aspect cannot be faulted. 6.2 The other ground taken by Revenue is that the learned Commissioner has erroneously rejected the evidence contained in Outgoing Register. From page 14 of the impugned Order-in-Original, we find that the Respondents contended before the Adjudicating Authority that the premises had 3 entities located there, whereas only one register was found at the gate and even in that register entries were made in unauthorized manner by the gatekeepers who were apparently uneducated; and that demand cannot be confirmed on the basis of such private record / register maintained by gatekeepers / security personnel engaged by independent security contractor, however. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the Respondent's contentions on the ground that entries made in those registers were too detailed and exhaustive and cannot be construed as entries made by some illiterate gatekeepers / security staff and the same being co-relatable with. In the present Appeal, Revenue has taken a ground that the entries in the said register largely tallied with the clearances of the Respondent assessee and hence rejection of the same by the Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....340) ELT 204 (Tri-Del) holding as under: "Clandestine removal - Evidence - Gate register maintained by security - Entire case of Revenue based on said register and certain statements - Ownership of said register denied immediately after search by assessee by filing an affidavit - No corroborative evidence adduced by Revenue from buyers, transporters and raw material suppliers, from whom in fact no investigations done, to show manufacture of huge quantity as allegedly removed clandestinely - Said allegation not sustainable merely on basis of Gate register entries - There being no infirmity in order of Commissioner (Appeals), same upheld." 6.5 We find that the Revenue in the last ground has made a bald assertion that the case laws relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) do not apply in these cases without citing specific instances. We are of the considered opinion that Revenue's contention is devoid of merit, as from the Show Cause Notice and Order-in-Original, it is evident that before relying on the entries in the said register Department did not cause any inquiry from the buyer/recipient of the goods or transporters though all the details were available to them. At the cos....