M/S Andaman Timber Industries vs Commr.Of Central Excise,Kolkata-Ii on 2 September, 2015
12. Another aspect of the case is that the learned Authorised Representative submitted that the Director of the Appellant Company was shown and accepted the statements of the employees of the transport companies. The learned Advocate countered the submission of learned Authorised Representative and drew the attention of the Bench to the correspondences to substantiate that the Appellant had not accepted the clandestine removal of the goods and filed refund claim of deposit made at the instance of the officers. This is supported by the letter dt.25.09.2001 of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, as referred above. It is seen that the Central Excise officers visited the Appellants factory on 22.08.2000, no storage/excess quantity of finished goods was found. They have also seized several records, no evidence to indicate clandestine removal of goods.