Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

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

....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 record showed production of yarn with....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e 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 'SPL' cannot be presumed to denote cross reel han....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 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)       It was further submitted that in ....