TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (11) TMI 148
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ible to prove with mathematical precision the offence committed. It is stated that Shri T. Murugavel had admitted that they have procured raw materials from the local trading companies at Sivakasi; not accounted them and utilised the same for unaccounted manufacture. It is stated that he had admitted that they had not maintained any account for packing materials. It is stated that when an assessee produces and consumes raw materials without maintaining any account, it is not possible for the investigating officers to seize and correlate them to the sale of unaccounted final product. It is further stated that moreover in the case of fireworks, because of its peculiar nature (hundreds of varieties are manufactured), there is no standard input....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; no assessee will properly account the sale proceeds realised from the illicitly cleared excisable goods. It is stated that Shri T. Murugavel, in his statement dated 22-2-2000 had admitted the offence. Hence, it is stated that the objection raised by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the counts of non-seizure of offending goods, proof of raw materials receipt, production account and flowback is not correct in law. It is also stated that refusal of permission to cross-examine the witnesses, whose statement have been relied upon by the adjudicating authority had clearly specified that as the persons in-charge of the traders have not given any statement or were not mahazar witnesses, the question of their cross-examination does not arise. However....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es with reference to consignees, invoice numbers, quantity of cases booked, serial number of cases, etc., were found, detailed investigation was conducted by officers of the various Commissionerates and detailed work sheet enclosed with the show cause notice. Moreover, the demand has been raised on the basis of receipt of the consignment from the assessee by the Lorry Booking Offices and Dealers. Hence, the order of Commissioner (Appeals) is not correct requires to be set aside. 3. On hearing the learned Counsel Shri Muthu Venkataraman and Shri C. Mani, learned DR and on going through the records and on a careful consideration, I notice that the Asstt. Commissioner did not allow for cross-examination of all the traders, who are supposed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appellants have clandestinely sold the goods. It is well laid down principle that there mere suspicion however grave it might be it cannot take the place of proof [Gian Mahtani v. State of Maharashtra - 1999 (110) E.L.T. 400 (S.C.)]. It has been held in the case of Utkal Galvanizers Ltd. & Others - 2003 (158) E.L.T. 42 (T) = 2003 (58) RLT 669, that merely showing higher turnover figures in the bank balance sheet for the purpose of taking loan from the bank is not a ground to hold clandestine manufacture and removal of goods. Further, it is contended that it is not possible to bring evidence of non-seasonal and non-existent raw material to account. They have also stated that non-seizure of offending goods, proof of raw materials receipt,....