9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 462X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of duty - demand set aside - appeal allowed. - E/288/2007-SM - 1169/2007-SM(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 19-7-2007 - Shri P.K. Das, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Vikrant Kackria, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri A.K. Rastogi, DR, for the Respondent. [Order]. Heard both sides and perused the record. 2. The appellant is manufacturer of iron and steel products. A show cause notice dated 23- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted his verification report to the Commissioner as reproduced below :- Burning loss is maximum while using mixed scrap (Sponge Iron C.I. Scrap and HMS) and minimum while using heavy scrap (sorted). Exclusive heavy scrap was not available with the party. Studies were conducted in respect of Mixed Scrap and Sorted scrap (heavy) on 18-10-2006 and 31-10-2006 and physical verification was done ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e-A to the Order-in-original. It is seen from the said annexure that the demand of duty calculated on the wastage percentage varies from 6.57% to 7.32% (except 7.88% within the year 2004-05). It is the contention of the learned advocate that the Commissioner modified the demand of duty on the basis of the average loss of 7%. It is seen from annexure to the Order-in-original that in some years, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ating authority modified the demand of duty on the basis of the verification report conducted by the central excise officers and reduced the demand of duty and, therefore, the demand of duty and penalty are justified. 6. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the record, it is seen that the verification report, as stated herein, indicates the percentage of burning loss 6.21% to 10.54% of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uantity is not sustainable. I also find force in the submission of the learned advocate that demand of duty prior to period 2005-06 is barred by limitation. It is seen that entire case was made out on the basis of the record which was modified by the adjudicating authority and, therefore, there is no reason of suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty. So the demand of duty fails o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
