9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 402X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion are in brief as under:- 1.1. M/s. Premium Bars (p) Ltd., Bagru, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as PBPL ) is a private limited company whose director is Sh. Arun Jain and Arun Kumar Singh is the authorised signatory of PBPL. The Company PBPL is engaged in the manufacture of mild steel ingots from iron steel scrap and also TMT bars from MS ingots. Certain quantity of MS ingots required for manufacture of TMT bars is also purchased by them from outside. On receipt of intelligence that they are indulging in large scale evasion of Central Excise duty by under reporting the receipt of raw material and under reporting the manufacture and sale of finished products, the factory premises of PBPL and residential premises of their director Sh. Arun Jain and also premises of M/s. Ambika Dharam Kanta, where the trucks carrying the finished goods cleared by PBPL and trucks carrying the raw material to PBPL were coming for weighment, were searched on 23.12.2009. During search of the factory premises when the stock taking of the finished product was conducted, it was found that stock of 202.955 MT of TMT bars valued at ₹ 52,35,630/- was in excess of the quantity recorded in the RG-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h. Suresh Choudhary present at the Dharam Kanta, were resumed under Panchnama. The documents recovered from Sh. Suresh Choudhary, a transporter included certain loose papers, weighment slips and five pocket diaries. On scrutiny of the records seized from M/s. Jai Ambika Dharam Kanta, scrutiny of the information retrieved from CPUs/Servers, other documents seized from PBPL and residential premises of Sh. Arun Jain, and documents seized from other person, it appeared that while they were procuring MS ingots from M/s. Gee Diamond Steels Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Amar Pratap Steel Pvt. Ltd. iron steel scrap from M/s. Rahul Sales, M/s. Shree Balaji Network-II, Jaipur; M/s. Shree Tirupati Steels, M/s. N.L. Garg Sons, Ajmer; M/s. Rahul Steels etc., they were selling TMT bars to M/s. Ratna Sales Co-operation, M/s. Khandewal Marketing, M/s. Jai Shree Steels, M/s. Shiv Iron Trading Company, M/s. Gotewala Steel etc. Sh. Banwari Lal Sharma the 4th appellant in this group of appeals is the Proprietor of M/s. Jai Shree Steel, Jaipur. During the subsequent enquiry, the documents recovered from Sh. Suresh Choudhary were found to be pertaining to MS ingots supplied by M/s. Amar Pratap Steel, Jaipur. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . PBPL and Sh. Arun Kumar Singh, authorised signatory M/s. PBPL, Sh. Banwari Lal Sharma Prop. of M/s. Jai Shree Steel and other Noticees for:- (a) recovery of total Central Excise duty of ₹ 1,98,10,353/- from PBPL in respect of clandestine clearances of TMT bars during period April'08 to July'11 along with interest thereon under section 11AB of Central Excise Act; (b) imposition of penalty under section 11 AC on M/s. PBPL; and (c) imposition of penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rule 2002 on Sh. Arun Kumar Jain, Director-PBPL, Sh. Arun Kumar Singh authorised signatory PBPL, Sh. Banwari Lal Sharma prop. of M/s. Jai Shree Steel and other Noticees. 1.9 The above Show Cause Notice was adjudicated by Commissioner of Central Excise Jaipur vide order-in-original dt. 18.03.13 by which he:- (a) confirmed the duty demand of ₹ 1,98,10,357/- against appellant M/s. PBPL along with interest under the provisions of Section 11AB of Central Excise Act 1944 and imposed penalty of equal amount of PBPL under section 11AC ibid; and (b) imposed penalty of under Rule 26(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on other noticees including Sh. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sh. Suresh Choudhary and as such demanding duty on the basis of transport diary for the same period would amount to charging duty on the same goods twice, that in any case, the duty demand based on the statement of Sh. Suresh Choudhary linking the document recovered form him with the appellant company is without any basis, as Sh. Suresh Choudhary has retracted his statement, that it is settled law that allegation of clandestine removal cannot be sustained on the basis of documents maintained by the third party unless the same are corroborated by independent evidence and cross examination of the persons, who had written the documents, is allowed that in this case, the cross examination has not been allowed and still the third party documents and the statement of the persons from whom the documents had been recovered, have been relied upon, that the appellant have strong prima facie case in their favour and hence the amount of ₹ 24 Lakhs already deposited may be considered sufficient for hearing of these appeals. It was also pleaded that seized goods along with seized cash of ₹ 22.5 lakhs are still with the Department and these goods and cash together with 24 lakhs alread ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation proceedings, these facts do indicate that appellant company was indulging in duty evasion. On going through the impugned order, we are of prima facie view that allegation of duty evasion of ₹ 1,98,10,357/- against the appellant company is not merely based on oral evidence but is also based on the documents recovered from factory premises of PBPL and also from the premises of their raw-material suppliers and their customers. Though the appellant plead that certain clearances have been counted twice and that a number of persons have retracted their statement and there is denial of natural justice, all these factors can be considered only at the stage of final hearing. At this prima facie stage, while considering the question of waiver from the requirement of pre-deposit of the adjudicated liability of the appellant company and other Noticees, all which is required to be seen is as to whether conditions are required to be imposed to safeguard the interest of the Revenue while granting waiver from the requirement of pre deposit and if no what conditions. Looking to the evidence on record as discussed in impugned order, this is not a case of total waiver and the amount alre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
