TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (3) TMI 168
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... matter, decided the issues which were subject matter of show-cause notice dated 18-3-2002, in favour of the Respondent, dropping the proceeding. Therefore, Revenue came with grievance in this appeal stating that the learned Adjudicating Authority without examining purchase order placed to the manufacture of stating that Pane-C brand biscuit, copy of order of acceptance by supplier, details of dispatch of Parle-G brand biscuit, lorry receipt showing movement of goods from the factory of manufacturer in Raipur up to the premises of the factory of the Respondent, details of payment made by the Respondent to the manufacturer of Parle-G brand and without cross verification of details of batch number on the packet of biscuit with the batch regis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gh examination of entire probability, action of ld. Adjudicating Authority was unjust who passed the order on extraneous consideration and without any evidence on record and the supporting order was merely under pre supposition of the case of the Respondent. 2. Ld. DR appearing for Revenue fully supported Review Order passed by CBEC as well as grounds thereon and prayed that entire demand made by the show-cause notice including confiscation proposed was sustainable, on the grounds of Revenue appeal in their Appeal Memo. Therefore, the impugned order dated 23-11-2002 passed by ld. Adjudicating Authority is liable to be reversed. 3. Heard ld. Sr. Advocate, Shri J.P. Khaitan appearing for the Respondent who strongly supported order of adjudi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... basis of material available on record. Having enough evidence in favour of Respondent, proceeding was liable to be dropped. Therefore, no interference to that order may be made. 4.1 Heard both sides and perused the case records. 4.2 There was a search to the premises of Respondent on 21-9-01. In the course of search it was found that the Respondent s Unit was in operation and biscuits were manufactured with the brand name of Respondent as well as brand name of Parle-G biscuit belonging to M/s. Maruti Foods of Raipur. The investigation team did not find unaccounted raw materials and finished goods account. They found physical quantity of 57621.95 kgs. of biscuits and valued at Rs. 9,79,573/-. Shri Rajesh Kumar who was present in the cour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ced that Revenue did not adduce any evidence in support of the allegation of manufacture of 5.5 laths kgs of biscuits. He relied on the submission of Respondent to come to the conclusion that the tools and equipment for manufacture of Mishri were of minor value items which could be purchased even from hawkers. Such a supposition shall not serve end of justice without evidence. He was of opinion that he had every reason to agree with the Respondent as mentioned in Para 14 of the impugned order. This is pulpable. He also accepted contention of the Respondent that disclosing of turnover relating to Mishri i.e. sugar candy in the sales tax return was not desirable as mentioned in Para 15 of the impugned order. Without enquiry why such undesirab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rle-G brand biscuits made by M/s. Maruti Foods of Raipur to the Respondent was concerned. Rather ld. Adjudicating Authority merely acted on supposition. This is patent from beginning of Paras 14 to 20 of the impugned order. 4.7 The ld. Adjudicating Authority simply subscribed to the pleading of Respondent without cogent evidence on record. No past record could be examined to come to the conclusion that whether there was purchase of any tools and equipment for manufacture of sugar candy in past and proved by record. Records did not even show such manufacture and accountability of sugar candy. Similarly, why the biscuit remained unaccounted on the date of search from 21-9-2001 to 1-10-2001 was not enquired into. So also mere version of Shri ....