2019 (5) TMI 1019 - HC - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - iron and steel goods - goods dispatched on the basis of Kacha Parchi - shortage of raw material and finished goods - HELD THAT - Identical issue decided in the case of M/S SADA SHIV STEEL MILLS, M/S SADA SHIV CASTINGS LTD., M/S SADA SHIV ISPAT LTD, SHRI SUNNY GARG, SHRI KEWAL GARG, M/S RAGHAV ENTERPRISES (PROP. SURESH AGARWAL) VERSUS CCE, CHANDIGARH-I 2016 (10) TMI 951 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH where it was held that nothing has been brought on record with corroborative evidence to allege clandestine removal against the appellant and was decided in favor of assessee. Following the same, appeal s dismissed in present case also - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in refiling the appeal.
2. Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order of the Tribunal.
3. Allegations of clandestine removal of goods without payment of duty.
4. Confirmation of duty and penalty against the firms and their proprietors.
5. Tribunal setting aside the Commissioner's order.
6. Dismissal of the present appeal based on a previous court order.

Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay: The High Court condoned the delay in refiling the appeal.

2. Appeal under Section 35G: The appellant-revenue filed the appeal against the order of the Tribunal, raising substantial questions of law regarding the findings in the impugned order, actions of the Tribunal, failure to appreciate evidence, dropping of demands, and observations on weighment for duty imposition.

3. Clandestine Removal of Goods: The case involved allegations of clandestine removal of finished goods without duty payment by the respondent units through a trading firm in Delhi. Search operations revealed shortages and excess stock at various premises, leading to the issuance of show cause notices and confirmation of duty and penalty by the Commissioner.

4. Confirmation of Duty and Penalty: After collecting evidence and statements, the Commissioner confirmed duty and penalty against all firms and their proprietors. This decision was challenged through appeals before the Tribunal.

5. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal, in its order dated 8.8.2016, set aside the Commissioner's order, prompting the appellant-revenue to file the instant appeal before the High Court.

6. Dismissal of the Appeal: The High Court noted that a similar appeal had been previously dismissed by the court, leading to the dismissal of the present appeal as well based on the earlier court order.

This detailed analysis covers the key issues involved in the legal judgment, highlighting the sequence of events, legal arguments, and the ultimate outcome of the case before the High Court.