Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Bhopal-Ii vs (Formerly Known As Shaw Wallace Ltd.) on 23 September, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST BLOCK NO.2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI 110 066. Date of Hearing/Order: 23.09.2016 Appeal No.E/2629/2011-EX[SM] [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.167/BPL/D-II/2011, dated 03.08.2011 passed by C.C.E.(Appeals), Bhopal-II] CCE, Bhopal-II Appellant Vs. M/s. Narmada Gelatines Ltd. (Formerly known as Shaw Wallace Ltd.) Respondent
Appearance Dr. SK Sheoran, DR - For Appellant None - For Respondent CORAM: Honble Mr. A.K. Arya, Member (Technical) Final Order No.54075/2016, dated 23.09.2016 Per Mr. Ashok K Arya :
1. Revenue is in appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 03.08.2011 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Bhopal. Commissioner (Appeals) has dropped the demand of central excise duty of Rs.12,42,909/-.
2. Revenue has been represented by Dr. S.K. Sheoran, ld. Departmental Representative and none is present on behalf of the respondent, namely, M/s. Narmada Gelatines Ltd.
3. After a careful consideration of records and submissions of Revenue, it is found that the Department has not given any substantial evidence to sustain the charge of clandestine removal of the goods on the part of the respondent. The Department is trying to sustain its case of clandestine removal based on the contents in the work sheet and balance sheet.
3.1 When the subject item, gelatine, which is generally supplied to the specific buyer in pharma sector, why the Department has not investigated further and submitted the details of the buyers of such goods and also the details of when and how these goods were removed to the buyers. One cannot say that the charge of clandestine removal is proved beyond reasonable doubt just by providing the contents of work sheet and the balance sheet. Therefore, the Department has failed to substantiate its case of clandestine removal of the goods on the part of the respondent. The case laws quoted by Revenue do not sustain the charge of clandestine removal of the subject goods by the respondent.
4. In the light of above discussion, there is no merit in the appeal filed by Revenue and it is hereby dismissed and the impugned order is sustained.
[Dictated and pronounced in the Open Court] (Ashok K. Arya) Member (Technical) SSK -3-