TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (5) TMI 221
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fficers but the same was, later on, released provisionally to them against payment of duty of Rs. 42,930/-. Further investigations conducted by the officers resulted in the recovery of two sets of invoices issued by the appellants, one set from the appellants' factory and the other set from their customer's premises. The invoices recovered from the appellants were all "QUADRUPLICATE" copies, while those recovered from their customers were all "ORIGINAL" copies. Some of the invoices in the two sets were found to have identical S. Nos. and dates of removal of goods. A comparative account of the particulars in the two sets of invoices could be had from Annexure I to the relevant show cause notice, which is extracted below :- ANNEXURE-I D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 148/23-3-03 3.140 1971 Different Invoice No.-Second inv. 13.140 315 8. Spent Acid 143/26-3-03 11.730 1760 16% 282 Spent Acid 151/26-3-03 11.730 1760 Different Invoice No.-Second inv. 11.730 282 9. Spent Acid 114/26-3-03 13.270 1991 16% 318 Spent Acid 152/26-3-03 13.210 1991 Different Invoice No.-Second inv. 13.270 318 10. Spent Acid 84/26-12-02 11.990 1799 16% 288 Spent Acid 85/26-12-02 11.990 1799 Different Invoice No.-Second inv. 11.990 288 11. Spent Acid 142/25-3-03 12.200 1830 16% 293 Spent Acid 149/25-3-03 12.200 1830 Different Invoice No.-Second inv. 12....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....removal of goods but for the purpose of production before the sales tax authorities at checkpost. Had there been any clearance of goods under cover of such invoices, the customers would have taken Modvat credit of the duty paid thereon. The Department could not show that the customers had taken Modvat credit of the duty mentioned in the invoices in question. They did not even record any statement from the customers. The burden was on the Department to prove clandestine removal of goods by the appellants through positive evidence. This burden was not successfully discharged. Hence the demand of duty of Rs. 22,000/- is not sustainable. In this connection, ld. Consultant has relied on the following decisions of the Tribunal :- (i) &nbs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....)]. As regards the confiscated goods, the appellants do not have any grievance. They paid duty on such goods. They obtained provisional release of the goods against payment of duty at the investigative stage itself. However, they challenge the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- imposed on them by the appellate authority. Ld. DR reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), after producing copies of the two sets of invoices. 2. After careful comparison of the two sets of documents, I have no doubt about the veracity of Annexure-1 to the show-cause notice. The demand of duty of Rs. 22,000/- is based on a set of 11 invoices which were recovered from the customer's premises. One of these customers is M/s. Sankarla Detergents and Cosmetics (....