2005 (4) TMI 226

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....7-2000 and seized yarn which were not properly accounted for. They conducted further investigations. The investigations prima facie revealed production and clearance of yarn in Cross Reel form in the guise of Plain Reel Hank Yarn. Yarn in cross reel was dutiable whereas Plain Reel Hank Yarn does not suffer any duty. Hence the case of the Revenue is that the appellants produced dutiable goods and removed them as goods not liable to duty. The statements of Shri A.S. Kotrappa, Managing Director of the appellant unit and Shri S. Manivasagam, Factory Manager were taken. The statements were inculpatory. However, the statements were immediately retracted on the ground that they were taken under duress. Some private records were seized. The private....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e above assumption has no basis as exhaustive investigations were carried out at the customers end and there is not even a shred of evidence to support the allegation of removal of cross reel hank yarn by misdeclaring the same as plain reel hank yarn and claiming exemption from demand of duty. (iii)       The burden of proof that appellants had misdeclared the yarn and cleared them without payment of duty is on the Revenue. Revenue has not discharged its burden. (iv)       Shri Manivasagam in his statement has explained that the words 'Specials, SPL and S' are one and the same. They are nothing but cotton yarn manufactured by modifying various machinery parameters. The term '....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tomers have testified that they received goods only as per invoice. (viii)      The adjudicating authority has recorded in Para 34 of the impugned order that the entire case against the appellant is based on the seizure of certain quantity of cross reel hank yarn, the corresponding quantity of which has been entered as 'SPL' in private records. Apart from the seizure on 27-7-2000 there is no other evidence. The Tribunal in the case of CCE, Jaipur v. Rose Metal (Pvt.) Ltd. [2001 (133) E.L.T. 217 (Del.)] has held that non-accountal of goods in RG 1 does not ipso facto indicate intention on the part of the assessee to evade payment of duty and therefore, the goods were not liable to confiscation. (ix)  ....