9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 1601 - AT - Central ExciseClandestine Removal - final product is produced in the ratio of 1 1.1 i.e., MS scrap was consumed more viz-a-viz Final product MS ingot - HELD THAT - The appellant has produced MS ingots but in the process, by-product runners and risers were also created which were duly shown in the ER 1 by the appellant. Some of the runners and risers were sold by the appellants and remaining were captively consumed in the manufacture of final product i.e. MS ingots. Matter remanded to the original authority to consider the final output of the MS ingots as well as consumed runners and risers i.e. as inter-mediated product from the original scrap. If the same was recycled, then it will be added to the account of MS scrap - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues: Appeal against order alleging clandestine removal of goods and duty demand.
Analysis: The appellant, engaged in manufacturing MS ingots from MS scrap, filed an appeal against the order alleging clandestine removal of goods and duty demand. The Department claimed that during the relevant period, more MS scrap was consumed compared to the production of MS ingots, leading to the accusation of clandestine removal. The appellant contended that the runners and risers created during the manufacturing process were duly recorded in the ER 1, with some being sold and the rest used in the production of MS ingots. The appellant provided details of the runners and risers in the ER 1 and the sales. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's submissions and set aside the impugned order. The matter was remanded to the original authority for a fresh examination considering the final output of MS ingots and the consumed runners and risers as an intermediate product from the original scrap. The adjudicating authority was instructed to review the entire record, provide a reasonable opportunity to the appellant, and admit fresh evidence if necessary. Consequently, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, granting the appellant a chance for a fair reconsideration of the case.
|
