TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 538
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tigations. A show cause notice dated 28.02.2015, demanding Central Excise duty of Rs.11, 11,790, invoking proviso to Section 11A, along with interest and proposing penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Order-in-Original confirmed the duty demanded and imposed equal penalty under Section 11AC ibid. On the appeal filed by the appellant learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 16-05-2018 upheld the order of the lower authority and therefore, the appellants preferred the instant appeal. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the entire case of department based on the entries in a Shristi Brand Notebook recovered during the search. He submits that however, the person, who allegedly have made entrie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tries in the notebook show that alleged clandestine removal was also on the tractors; as tractors cannot be used for transportation of goods of that quantities mentioned therein, contents of notebook cannot be believed; some other entries however, relate to alleged transportation by tractor trolley. (vii). A look at the notebook gives an impression that all the entries have been written with the same pen and at the same time; private record appears to have been sources and planted. 3. Learned Counsel further submits that in a similar situation Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Flevel International Vs Commissioner of Central Excise 2016 (332) E.L.T. 416 (Del.) held as under:- "55. Mr. Hari Shanker, learned Seni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her submits that Tribunal in the case of M/s Makers Casting Pvt. Ltd. vide Final Order No.75279-75281/2022 held that clandestine removal cannot be alleged only on the basis of the statement but it has to be corroborated with tangible concrete evidence and not on the basis of wild inferences or assumptions and presumptions. 5. Learned Authorised Representative for the revenue reiterates the findings of Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal and submits that the impugned order has extensively analyzed the evidence submitted by the revenue and have upheld the charge of clandestine removal. Hence, the appeal is liable to be rejected. 6. Heard both sides and perused the case records. 7. We find that the case of the Department is that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....horized representative argues that only a tractor has registration and not the trolley and therefore, reference to tractor should be read as reference to tractor with trolley. However, I find that this is only an assumption as the entries in the diary distinctly mention tractor and tractor trolley separately. The person writing the diary was not identified and evidence was not established as to the truthfulness of contents. This becomes significance due to the lack of any other corroborative evidence. 9. I find that clandestine removal is a serious charge and requires to be substantiated by evidence encompassing various activities in the chain of events. I find that the Tribunal, in the matter of Nova Petrochemicals v. CCE, Ahmadabad-II,....