Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Customs ,Central ... vs Kjr Poly Films Pvt Ltd on 2 February, 2015
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Appeal(s) Involved: E/60/2009-SM [Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 96/2008 (H-IV) (D) CE dated 24/10/2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad.] For approval and signature: HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? Yes 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes Commissioner of Customs ,Central Excise and Service Tax HYDERABAD-IV POSNETT BHAWAN, TILAK ROAD, RAMKOTI, HYDERABAD, - 500001 ANDHRA PRADESH Appellant(s) Versus KJR POLY FILMS PVT LTD. PLOT NO. d-162, PHASE III, IDA JEEDIMETLA Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. Mohd. Yusuf, AC (AR) For the Appellant None For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 02/02/2015 Date of Decision: 02/02/2015 CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Final Order No: 20203 / 2015 Per : ARCHANA WADHWA I have heard the learned AR appearing for the Revenue, in support of their appeal. Nobody is present on behalf of the respondent.
2. As per facts on records, the respondents are engaged in the manufactures of co-extruded polythene films. Their factory was visited by the Central Excise officers on 30.6.2007 and on physical verification of the raw materials and finished goods, the same were found in excess than their record balance in the statutory records. The same were seized under Panchanama and statements of various persons were recorded.
3. On the basis of the same, a show-cause notice was issued to the respondent proposing confiscation of the goods, confirmation of the demand and imposition of penalties. The said show-cause notice was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner, who vacated the same by accepting the assessees stand that the finished goods were the production of previous day and were yet to be entered in RG-I. As regards the raw materials, he accepted their stand that if the transaction for the last 8-9 years is taken into account, there would not be any clandestine clearances, as alleged by the Revenue and such shortages was on account of stock in process, machine wastage, floor wastage and sweepings, etc.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Assistant Commissioner, Revenue filed an appeal before the Commissioner (A), who rejected the same by observing that it is for the department to prove that there was any evasion or clandestine removal. The Revenue having not been able to discharge the said burden cannot allege that the appellants have removed the materials after availing the credit.
4.1 Hence the present appeal of the Revenue.
5. Both the authorities below held in favour of the respondents. I have gone through the said orders and find merits in the same. The lower authorities have given detailed findings that shortages/difference of various raw materials have to be considered as loss is meager and negligible over the period of 9 years and the proportionate credit of Rs.1,23,969/- cannot be denied to the assessee.
5.2 As against the above, Revenue has not referred to any evidence showing any clandestine activities on the part of the respondent. As such, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned orders of the authorities below. Revenues appeal is accordingly, rejected.
(Order pronounced and dictated in open court) ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER rv 3