9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the findings recorded by the Tribunal which have not been shown to be erroneous or perverse, no question of law much less substantial arises for consideration in this appeal. - Decided against the revenue. - CEA No. 20 of 2012 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 16-7-2012 - Ajay Kumar Mittal and Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, JJ. Shri Kamal Sehgal, Advocate, for the Appellant. ORDER The revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short the Act ) against the order dated 29-6-2011 [2011 (274) E.L.T. 94 (Tri. - Del.)], Annexure A.4 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for brevity, the Tribunal ) in Central Excise Appeal No. 2004 of 2005, claiming following substant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tory of the respondent after delivering the goods to M/s. Saeco Iron Steel Mills, Ludhiana but carrying back the original, duplicate and triplicate copies of invoice No. 85, dated 20-5-1996 issued by the respondent. In the follow up action, 15.410 MT of non-alloy steel ingots received by M/s. Saeco Iron and Steel Mills Ludhiana were seized as the same were received without any document. Show Cause Notice dated 14-11-1996 was issued to the respondent on 14-11-1996. The respondent deposited the sum determined by the authority vide order dated 19-2-1999. During the follow up action, the officers also visited the factory premises of the respondent and certain incriminating documents were recovered from a room situated near the boundary wall o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd in possession of the respondent-assessee, the authorities below were not justified in holding that there was no clandestine removal of excisable goods. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the record, we do not find any merit in the appeal. 5. The findings recorded by the Tribunal read thus :- 6.1 We have carefully considered the submissions from both sides and perused the records. It is on record that when the officers visited the factory premises on 20-5-1996, there was no discrepancy of stock noticed. There was no seizure of any consignment while being transported without excise invoices. What has been alleged is that a consignment has been sent alongwith invoices and the same were delivered to one M/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... removed goods. It is not the case of the department that evidence was produced in respect of any particular invoice that consignments have been cleared more than once using such invoice. The department having recovered private documents, in our considered opinion, failed in conducting investigation in the relevant direction. 6.4 It is not a case that any authorized person of the company admitted to unaccounted production and clandestine removal and therefore the officers felt that there was no need for further investigation. The authenticity of the documents seized and the veracity of the entries made therein have not been corroborated by any meaningful investigation, even though show cause notice has been issued nearly after three and ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
