9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 932X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aluminium scrap etc. These shortages have been accepted by the appellant; they have made deposit and further Managing Director of the appellant attributed the shortages to mismanagement in the factory. It is seen that the lower authority has after detailed analysis, satisfied himself that the show cause notice allegations are indeed correct. The appellants have not been able to adduce proof to the contrary. In fact in both the two rounds of original adjudication, the two different adjudicating authorities have arrived at the same conclusions and have also confirmed the proposals in the show cause notice. We are also satisfied that the directions of Tribunal in its earlier Remand Order dated has been followed by the denovo adjudicating authority. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for any interference. - Decided against the appellant - Appeal No. E/517 & 520/2007 - Final Order No. A/30831 to 30832/2016 - Dated:- 11-7-2016 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member(Judicial) And Mr. Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member(Technical) None for the Appellant Shri Nagendra Rao, AR for the Respondent ORDER [ Order per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S. ] 1. Brief facts are as under: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant was present nor was there any representation on his behalf. None the less, in the interest of justice further chance was given and the case was adjourned to 11-07-2016 as last chance and notice was again issued to the appellant. On 11-07-2016 an application was filed by counsel for appellant seeking adjournment on the ground that, As I am indisposed and advised rest for a week , which in our opinion is not a satisfactory ground for adjournment, especially when this bench has been repeatedly informing lawyers to get ready in all matters upto 2008. This appeal being of the year 2007 and being almost 10 years old, we therefore proceed to dispose the matter after hearing the department and perusal of records. 5. The main grounds of appeal preferred by appellant are as follows: 5.1 The impugned order has been passed only relying on certain statements rendered by some of the officers of the company and the Managing Director. No verification of the records or any investigation in such manner was carried out by the investigating officers. 5.2 The impugned order is contrary to the ratio of decision of the Hon ble Tribunal in the case of Tripathi Rubber Industries Vs CCE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 93,992/- is demanded (ii) wrong availment of Cenvat credit without receiving inputs, for which ₹ 99,65,585/- is demanded. Central Excise Officers visited the factory on 24-04-2003 and on 03-06-2003. Statement of Managing Director and other employees was recorded from 03-06-2003 to 17-06-2003. Statement of Managing Director was recorded in the year 2005 also. On visiting the factory and verifying documents, the following discrepancies were alleged. Description of goods Stock as per RG 1/RG12 A Part-I (in kgs) Physical stock available (In kgs) Shortage (in kgs) Value of shortages(in Rs) Al.Alloy Ingots 3192 Nil 3192 271320 Al.Ext.Hallow profiles 1310 Nil 1310 134930 Al.Scrap 5200 800 4400 176000 DG Shapes 5 Nos. 3 nos. 2 Nos. 5200 10. The appellant th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oyees who colluded with ex-directors and did not consider the enormous evidence placed by appellant in the form of extracts of Daily Production Log sheets, RG-23A, Part II, RG-I, daily Stock register. In the second round of litigation, it is seen that adjudicating authority has well considered these documents. The relevant portion of impugned order is reproduced below for better understanding of the point. Further, a bare perusal of entries made in RG23A Part I vis-`-vis log sheets amply demonstrates that there are manipulated paper transactions shown with a sole intention of fraudulent availment of Cenvat credit. For instance, as per entries shown in RG23A Part-I, 1107.2 Kgs( 8. 5. 03) and 1040.3Kgs( 15.5.03) of aluminium profiles wee shown to have been issue dot production where as log sheets on corresponding dates indicate issue 707 kgs of ingots on 8.5.03, nil on 15.5.03. Similarly, RG 23 A part-I shows the issue of 2011 Kgs(17.5.03), 1403 Kgs (18.4.03) and 2267 Kgs( 21.4.03) of aluminium profiles, whereas log sheets indicate issue of castings without mentioning weight on 17.4.03; 350 Kgs on ingots on 18.4.03 and no entry on 21.4.03. As per the versions of production perso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
