9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent ORDER Per B. Ravichandran The Revenue is in appeal against the order dated 27.11.2007 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal. 2. This is the second round of litigation of the matter. Earlier the Tribunal vide Final Order No.615/06-Ex and 644/2006 dated 26.6.2006 has remanded the mater back to original authority for fresh adjudication. 3. The facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of MS Ingots, liable to central excise duty. Certain investigations were conducted against the respondent and proceeding were initiated against them for demanding duty of excise on unaccounted production and clearance of MS ingots during October 2000 to August 2005. After due process the case was deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncy in the stock of finished goods is noticed. c) No direct evidence of alleged clandestine clearance has been brought on record. d) The department does not challenge the tripping of power supply coupled with low voltage supply of electricity of Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board. e) The issue with regard to the use of electricity in the Assessee factory for the ancillary purpose other than running of an Induction Furnace has also not been challenged. f) The details of other alternative consumption of electricity is as follows:- i) Cutting of scrap by electric welding machine and cutters. ii) Use of overhead crane for feeding of raw material, lifting of finished material from furnace to the pit side and from pit side to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y as 950 units for manufacture of 1 MT of MS Ingots by he assesseee does not hold good in view of the analysis report cited above. I find from the submission of the assessee that they are using only an indigenously assembled induction furnace which is bearing no specification of any recognized induction furnace manufacturer of the country . The impugned order further examined the background of power consumption and quantity of raw material and final goods manufactured by the respondent. After detailed analysis and relying on various higher judicial authorities, the impugned order concluded that demand cannot be sustained. 8. We find, as already noted, the Department in the present appeal has not brought out any evidence to corroborat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
