2024 (3) TMI 278

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ferent grades such as opaque, transparent and satin falling under the Chapter CTH No. 3207 20 10 of the Central Tariff Act, 1985. The Appellant has availed benefit of Cenvat Credit under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It is the case of the Department that the Appellants are allegedly involved in the clandestine removal of goods on which Central Excise Duty has not been paid by them and that the Appellants have wrongly availed Cenvat Credit. Accordingly, duty, interest and penalty has been imposed on the Appellants. The Adjudicating Authority vide impugned Order - in - Orginal No. BHR/EXCUS/000/COM/100 - 15 - 16 dated 31.03.2016 has upheld the allegations made by the Department and confirmed the demand along with penalty and interest. Hence the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rcon sand quantity, transportation details, buyers etc. 2.2 Without prejudice to above, he submits that the Appellants maintain RG 23 part - I/raw material receipt register to maintain records for each type of raw material on a day-to-day basis and since the Appellants are under no statutory requirement to maintain chits that contain breakup of raw material per batch, the same was not preserved by them. 2.3 He further submits that the Department whilst alleging clandestine removal of goods has based the entire demand only on surmises and conjectures and have not considered submissions made by the Appellants. He has relied on the following judgements in support of his claim. Commissioner v. Durga Trading Co. 2004 (168) ELT A122(SC) Com....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....partment on such incorporeal data to support their claim is perverse. Furthermore, no evidence has been brought on record to show any excess procurement of raw material for the alleged differential production by the Appellants. Corroborative evidence such as evidence of other inputs required for manufacture, transportation, details of buyers etc. have not been provided by the Department. The Tribunal has relied on the case of Moon Beverages where a similar situation has been dealt with and the view adopted by the tribunal was that the charge of clandestine removal cannot be established on the basis of one single factor. 4.2 The Tribunal also took note of the decision in Kamal Biri Factory and Shri Khushnuden Rehman Khan v. CCE, Meerut - 20....