2006 (6) TMI 543

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... had to go out of station. The reason given by the applicant is a justifiable and hence the order-dated 28.12.2005 is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number. The appeal itself is taken up for disposal. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration is that the officers of the Central Excise visited the factory of the appellant and conducted stock taking. It was found by the officers that there was a stock of 1171 pcs of finished goods unaccounted in the RG 1 register. The said goods were seized and the officers conducted further investigation. On conclusion of the investigation a show cause notice was issued demanding duty on the allegation that the appellant had removed clandestinely finished goods, which was wor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ds. I find that the investigations in the appellant's case was initiated due to the excess stock of finished goods found in the factory of the appellant during the visit of the officers. The authorities issued a separate show cause notice for the confiscation of the said goods found excess. The confiscation was set aside by the appellate authority vide his order-in-appeal No. 612/ CE/ APPL KNP/04 dated 28.10.2004 on the ground that the appellants never cleared their goods for home consumption. On a specific query, the DR was not able state that the revenue had preferred appeal against order-dated 28.10.2004. In the current proceedings before me the lower authorities in the same investigation have confirmed the demand of the duty. It is ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to be corroborated with some kind of plausible and positive evidence. The confiscation of the unaccounted goods has been set aside, which in itself indicates that the appellant had no intention to remove the said goods clandestinely. If there no antecedents of any clandestine removal, the revenue has to adduce some kind of evidence to suggest evasion of duty by clandestine removal. In this case there is total lack of evidence, to even suggest remotely, that the appellant had clandestinely removed the goods. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd v. Union of India as reported at 1978 (2) ELT (J172) (SC) had settled the law in an identical issue. Their lordship have held as under: Offence - Clandestine product....