By TIOL News Service

NEW DELHI, MAY 26, 2014: THIS is a Revenue appeal filed in the year 2006.

The department found tobacco products stored in various godowns outside the factory and alleged that the goods have been clandestinely manufactured and cleared by the respondents. Actually, the godowns were originally sealed by the sales tax officers and were found to be stored with the goods bearing the brand name of the respondents.

Statements of the company were recorded and they informed that the said godowns do not belong to them as they do not have any other storing place except the factory premises. When asked about the goods lying in the godowns, they submitted that the goods might have been stolen from their manufacturing units in small quantities clandestinely and might have been stored there.

Subsequently, the persons who have taken the said godowns on rent claimed the ownership of the seized goods and submitted that they were buying the same from many workers working in different factories and they were not aware whether the same were duty paid or not.

Be that as it may, Revenue wants duty on these Tobacco Products and probably confiscation etc.

However, the proceedings initiated were set aside by the Commissioner(A) and, therefore, the Revenue is before the CESTAT.

The Bench recorded its findings in a terse manner thus -

"4. Without going into the detailed facts, I find that the entire case of the revenue is based upon by the recovery of the goods from the godowns, which the present respondent has specifically denied any connection with. The revenue case is that the said goods have been clandestinely manufactured and cleared by the respondents. There is virtually no evidence lending any credence to the said allegation. On the contrary, certain persons have surfaced during investigation and have claimed the ownership of the said goods. In the absence of any evidence showing that the goods in question were manufactured by the respondent and were cleared by them without payment of duty, I find no reasons to disturb the findings of Commissioner (Appeals) inasmuch as Revenues entire case is based upon assumptions and presumptions. Accordingly appeals filed by the revenue are rejected."

Tail piece: To see its appeals rejected after eight years is not what the Revenue would have wished for!

(See 2014-TIOL-857-CESTAT-DEL)