Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. - (1.) THE Revenue has filed this petition under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It claims that the following question of law arises for the opinion of this Court: Whether circumstantial evidence placed on records is not sufficient to prove the clandestine manufacture and removal of the goods?
(2.) MR . Gumber, learned Counsel for the Revenue contends that the first respondent was manufacturing worsted woollen yarn and selling it. Thus, Excise duty and penalty etc. had been validly levied. The Tribunal has erred in reversing the order. Is it so? There is a delay of two days in filing the petition. Mr. Gumber prays that the delay be condoned. Even if we overlook the delay, there is no merit in the petition.
(3.) A perusal of the order passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal shows the following finding has been recorded: While the case of the Revenue is based on the discrepancies in the purchases and supplies of the yarn, we consider that for demand of duty what was required was the fact of manufacture. We have carefully gone through the evidence on record but we do not find that any plausible case has been made out to substantiate the allegation that the yarn supplied to DGS&D was the yarn manufactured by the appellants themselves in their mill. For establishing the allegation of such a nature, we consider that type of material placed on record, was not alone sufficient.;