9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (7) TMI 531X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellants were also having two sister concerns, viz., M/s. Usha Udyog, Kanpur and M/s. RHL Profiles Ltd., Kanpur having rolling mills. These sister concerns were buying considerable quantity of ingots from M/s. Somani Iron Steels Ltd. which were used in the manufacture of final products. On 18-1-93, the factory premises of the appellants as well as of their sister concerns, were searched by the revenue authorities. During verification of records, it was found that there was an excess of 325 MTs of M.S. Ingots as compared to their recorded balance in their statutory record. A separate show cause notice was issued to the appellants for this excess quantity. 3. During verification of the private records, it was found that from 1-1-93 to 17- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of heats per day and lesser quantity of production per heat. The private record recovered from the factory premises only relates to the period from 1-1-93 to 17-1-93 and most of the entries alleged to have been made by one Sh. Lalit Tewari. No statement of Sh. Lalit Tewari was recorded. The allegation against the appellants is that their employee, Sh. Lalit Tewari made entries in the private record in a codified manner and there is no evidence on record to show that the relevant records, recovered from the appellants factory, were in the hands of Sh. Lalit Tewari. 6. The contention of the appellants is that the production for the period from 17-1-93 to 18-1-93 i.e. two days were not recorded in their statutory records due to the visit o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... instead of actual production 12,172 MTs. per heat. For calculating the actual number of heats taken, these figures had been multiplied by 59/67 which appears to be a suppression ratio of number of heats, as forthcoming from the record pertaining to the period from 1-1-93 to 17-1-93. In these circumstances, appellants during the period from Jan., 92 to Jan., 93 had shown 9052 heats whereas the actual number of heats come to 10280 and if the production per heat had been taken as 12,172 MTs., then on calculation, the appellants had produced 175830 MTs. of finished goods as compared to 114349 MTs recorded in their statutory records. The excess production was cleared to their sister concerns, without payment of duty and the sister concerns also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... production alleged to have been suppressed during the period from 1-1-93 to 17-1-93. There is no other evidence to show that the appellants were recording less production than the actual production during this period. The adjudicating authority confirmed this demand for this period by multiplying the excess production for the period from 1-1-93 to 17-1-93. 13. The adjudicating authority in para 196 of adjudication order observed that it is an open secret that industrial units engaged in the manufacture of steel generally resort to the pilferage of power. Therefore, the power consumption records as maintained by the party, and also based on which the U.P. Electricity Board took their charges could not fully relied . We find that these are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
