9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 751X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed by Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. I have heard Shri B.B. Sharma, learned AR appearing for the Revenue, and Shri S.P. Ojha learned Consultant appearing for the respondent. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots. The contingents of Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ips it was observed that 20 consignments of MS Ingots weighing 300 MTs of MS Ingots (taken on average basis of 15 MTs, per truck), involving. Central excise duty of Rs. 8,60,766/- was cleared by the respondent to RSI without payment of duty. The authorized signatory of the assessee in his statement dated 3.03.2007 admitted of having cleared 300 MTs of MS Ingot to RSI in two trucks of the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... They further contended that no investigation was caused from the partners of RSI and no statement of the owner of the appellant unit was recorded. Further no investigations were made at the Respondents end. They also submitted that there is no evidence of excess consumption of electricity and over cash payment from RSI. Further no cross-examination of the gate keeper and authorized signatory of R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contention their average consumption of electricity during the month of December 2006 was 1069 units per MT which is normal and the same would be below 500 units per MT if the alleged production of 300 MT is considered. This I observe that the department has not brought sufficient evidence on records to prove the alleged clandestine removal with reference to electricity consumption and other corro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proved by production of sufficient and tangible evidence. Recovery of kaccha slips from the gate keeper of another unit read with the inculpating statement of the authorized representative of third party cannot be held to be admissible evidence so as to uphold the allegation of clandestine removal, especially when such persons have not been tendered for cross-examination. Accordingly, I find that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
