Dhariwal Industries Ltd, Pune vs Assessee on 2 May, 2016
Further, in the case of CCE, Kanpur Vs. S.C.Manufacturers reported in
2005 (179) ELT 193 (Tri.), the Hon'ble' Tribunal observed that, The
duty demand was raised on the allegations of clandestine removal of
the goods after visit of the Central Excise Officers to the factory
premises of the appellants who took into possession certain torn pieces
of paper and other documents. But, neither any shortage nor excess of
the raw material as well as of the finished goods, was found by the
Central Excise officers in the factory premises of the Respondents. It is
also evident that Shri Sodhi, the then partner of the Respondents (now
deceased) never admitted categorically in his statement about the
clandestine manufacture and removal of the finished goods by his firm.
The bald testimony of D.K. Bajpai, authorised signatory of the
Respondents firm also did not advance the case of the Department as
none of the consignees named in the alleged parallel invoices admitted
the receipt of the goods from the Respondent's firm, No evidence
regarding the excess use of the raw material or consumption of
electricity by the Respondents had been brought on record. Therefore,
charge of clandestine removal of the goods without payment of duty by
.the Respondents, did not stand proved."