9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 543X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing the order, ld. Commissioner also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- on Shri Chandra Bhushan Sharma, Vice President of the Appellant-Company. However, we did not find any appeal petition of Shri Chandra Bhushan Sharma, Vice President, while disposing of the appeal of the Appellant. Neither side also mentioned whether any such appeal was pending. Therefore, appeal of the Company-Appellant was taken up for hearing by this order. 2. The Appellant was called upon to show-cause as to why :- (i) Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 11,67,532/- should not be demanded and recovered from them in terms of 1st proviso to Sec. 11A(1) of the Act and Rs. 12,00,000/- already paid by them should not be appropriated against the said demand; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts having enjoyed Cenvat Credit were removed otherwise shall be liable to duty. He found that 501.01 MT of M. S. Ingots were removed clandestinely for which the Appellant should suffer duty and penalty. So far as the plea relating to no suppression of facts and statements recorded under pressure and threat is concerned, he held that was not so, but in order. Therefore, the proceeding was not time barred. 3. The impugned order precisely throws light that the demand arose on three counts, i.e. (i) Finished goods of 47.865 MT were not physically found at the time of Inspection; (ii) Assorted inputs of 383.669 MT were removed otherwise availing Cenvat Credit; (iii) 501.01 MT of M. S. Ingots were removed clandestinely. 4. Sur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out a categorical allegation in SCN to plead defence the proceeding suffers from legal infirmity being arbitrary and prejudicial to the interest of justice. 6. Ld. JDR appearing for the Revenue submitted that the order passed by the ld. Commissioner was proper and the same having elaborately discussed on all points made, needs no intervention. 7.1 Heard both sides and perused the case records. No doubt search was conducted on 20th March, 2002 and the Investigating Officers conducted physical verification of the goods and found 47.865 MT of finished goods (M.S. Ingot) not physically available. Impugned order does not throw light whether the Investigating Squad made evaluation of the seized documents to arrive at the conclusion that the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt also sustains. 7.5 So far as the demand arose out of seized Note Book under seizure identification marks Annexure D-1 D-2 is concerned, the impugned order does not show clear finding how the duty involvement of Rs. 7,06,906/- was worked out. There was absence of nexus of live link of evidence. However, bare perusal of page 3 and page 4 of the impugned order throws light that certain deliveries were made by the Appellant to some persons. But the Authorities failed to summon those persons to examine the veracity nor carried out investigation to ascertain truth of contents. They failed to discharge burden of proof for the allegation they made. No speaking order was passed to demonstrate a re-conciliation nor probe was made to establish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
