TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 240
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....searched the premises of M/s. Punit Yarn Agencies and seized certain records including a sales register for the year 1999-2000. On the basis of the entries in the register it was alleged that the appellants have clandestinely purchased texturized yarn, 43920.310 kgs under 7 bills, and have cleared dyed yarn made out of the same without payment of duty. A Show Cause Notice dated 21.06.2004 was issued to the appellants and was confirmed vide Order in Original 29.03.2005. The matter travelled to CESTAT who, vide final order No.A/987-988/WZB/06C.III/EB and S/740-741/WZB/06/CIII/06 dated 10.08.2006, remanded back directing the Commissioner Appeals to follow principals of natural justice. Commissioner Appeals has further remanded the matter back ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f finished goods. He further submits that from the seven Bills issued by M/s. Punit Yarn Agency, it is apparent that the goods were purchased on M/s. Beekaylon and Ashok Industries on payment of duty in the open market and that they have proved the duty paid character of the goods; therefore it was wrong on the part of the original and appellant authorities to deny the benefit of notification No.5/99 dated 28.02.1999 allowing concessional rate of duty. Once the benefit is allowed the duty liability comes to Rs. 4,54,575. Learned Counsel also submits that in respect of similar proceedings initiated by Show Cause Notice dated 26/27.10.2004 the appellants have approached the settlement commission and have accepted their guilt. For that reason ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Mumbai 2001 (127) ELT 718 (Tri.Mum) (iv). Ureka Polymers Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi 2001 (127) ELT 618 (Tri. Del) (viii). Om Prakash Agarwal Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur 2017 (346) ELT 125 (Tri.Del) (ix). Jay Jalaram Processors Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat 2014 (313) ELT 724 (Tri. - Ahmd) (x). Baba BAlak Nath Steel (P) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise 2010 (259) ELT 499 (P&H) (xi). Amrit Agro Industries Ltd. Vs Commissioner of C.Ex. Ghaziabad 2007 (210) ELT 183 (S.C.) (xii). Gulabchand Silk Mills P. Ltd. Vs CCE, Hyderabad-II 2005 (184) ELT 263 (Tri.Bang) (xiii). Phoenix Mills Ltd. Vs Union of India 2004 (168) ELT 310 (Bom) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....osition to confirm that the sales were effected to the Appellants. Shri Tarun Kumar Pukhraj Shah in his statement dated 02.06.2004 stated, on being shown the said seven bills that they had not purchased the said quantities of texturized yarn as appearing in M/s. Punit Yarn Agency Sales Register for the year 1999-2000; they have not made the said payments and that he could not explain how the sales register of M/s. Punit Agency is showing entries against their names. The other partner Shri Bharat Kumar Shah has also not confirmed anything beyond the same. 5. It is not understood as to how the Original Authority and the Appellant Authority have given a finding that the concerned persons of the Appellants have accepted their guilt. It is se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llants have not maintained any records for receipt of the texturised yarn alleged to have been received by the appellants. No other evidence, except for the entries in the sales register of another company, to show receipt of raw material, use of other material, labour and fuel and clandestine manufacture and removal, has been put forth by revenue. That being the case we are doubtful if a case of clandestine removal can be sustained. The original authority as well as the Appellant Authority have given a finding that the appellants have approached the settlement commission in respect of another show cause notice emanating from the same set of evidence and thus the appellants are habitual offenders. We find that such a conclusion based on the....