TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (1) TMI 299
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ver the country. Officers of Central Excise visited their factories as well as residential premises of their partners as also the premises of some of their agents and recovered the following records :- (i) Registers, ledgers, copy of drafts and correspondence files were seized besides unaccounted cash of Rs. 10,20,816/- from the common office premises. (ii) Magazine Stock Note book delivery memos certain packing chits were recovered by M/s. RFW. (iii) Excess unaccounted stock of fireworks valued at Rs. 3,56,262/- were seized at M/s. RFW. (iv) Certain documents and excess unaccounted stock of fire works valued at Rs. 78,194.55 were seized from M/s. RFI. (v) 'Extra Note Book' and 'Ramakrishna....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....were also proposed under Rule 209A on the partners of the firms as well as on some agents. The show cause notice was contested. The jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise passed the aforesaid order. He confirmed a part of the demand of duty on the basis of the documents listed above and vacated the rest of the demand for want of evidence. The confirmed demand was honoured by the parties. The Revenue is in appeal in respect of that part of the demand which was vacated by the Commissioner. 3. Heard both sides. Ld. DR reiterates the grounds on these appeals. Ld. Counsel for the respondents justifies the order of the Commissioner. Both sides have relied on case law, which we will consider in the appropriate context. 4. Four issues ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y such evidence. It is the case of ld. Counsel that the evidence gathered in relation to clearances of goods made to some of the agents cannot be made applicable to clearances made to others. This point is sought to be substantiated by the Counsel by relying on Final Order No. 864-874/04, dated 18-8-2004 passed by this Bench in Appeals No. E/3118/98 etc. (M/s. Sri Parasakthi Fire Works & others v. CCE, Madurai) [2004 (174) E.L.T. 449 (Tri.)]. Ld. Counsel has particularly referred to paragraphs 7 and 8 of the said Order. 5. The following is the case law relied on by ld. DR,- (i) M/s. Roxy Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. CCE - 1991 (53) E.L.T. 585 (T) (ii) Collector of Customs, Madras & others v. D. Bhoormull - 1983 (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t so as to cover all the dealers who have placed purchase orders on the Fireworks factories on the basis of which the difference between the invoice value and the purchase order price has been arrived at. On appreciation of the evidence, the Commissioner has clearly held that though there has been undervaluation of the goods, evidence is only to a limited extent viz. the excess payment received as admitted by some of the dealers as well as DDs received and credited in the personal SB account of the partners. He has also held that so far as the remaining dealers who have not been investigated, benefit of doubt has been extended. Needless to mention that when evidence available is only to a limited extent, demand has to be restricted to that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....come anywhere near the point we have dealt with. The decision in Roxy Enterprises (supra) was cited in support of the Revenue's case that clandestine removal ought to have been found not only in respect of goods for which there was evidence of such removal but also in respect of goods for which evidence was not available. It is, by now, settled law that a finding of clandestine removal requires positive evidence to support it. In respect of the clearances for which demand of duty was vacated by the Commissioner, there was no such evidence available. The Apex Court's judgment was cited in support of the plea relating to mathematical precision. We are dealing with a civil dispute and not a quasi-criminal case like the one which was dealt with....