9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 357X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in the record - no evidence has been brought on record about the procurement of raw materials and the clearances of the finished goods and the purchasers to whom such goods were cleared and how the sale proceedings were recovered and accounted for - allegations in respect of evasion of Central Excise duty to the tune of ₹ 30,57,948/- on the basis of the said 11 loose slips and allegation of evasion of Central Excise duty of ₹ 26,49,514/- on the basis of the said 129 GRs is presumptive. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/1843-1845/2007-EX[DB] - A/70139-70141/2017-EX[DB] - Dated:- 17-1-2017 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs found short, Central Excise duty of ₹ 30,57,948/- on 1659.4785 MT of M.S. Bars and 45.00 MT of M.S. Scrap involved in 11 loose slips recovered and Central Excise duty of ₹ 26,49,514/-on 1465.439 MT of M.S. Bars valued at ₹ 1,65,59,460/- which were involved in 129 GRs recovered from various premises of transporters should not be demanded from them under proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. There were proposals for interest and penalty and for personal penalty on Shri Ajay Kumar Jain Shri Amit Kumar Jain. The appellant contended before the Original Authority that in reply to the question No. 2 to the statement dated 13/11/2002, Shri Amit Jain clearly stated that the said 11 loose slips ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Original Authority imposed equal penalty on M/s Premier Ispat Ltd. and further imposed penalty of ₹ 5 lakh each on Shri Ajay Kumar Jain Shri Amit Kumar Jain, under Rule 06 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant is before this Tribunal. 3. The grounds of appeal are as follows. A) 11 loose slips were not recovered from their factory premises and therefore they cannot be relied upon as evidence. B) The statements of transports GRs were recovered from transporters are third party evidences and there are a lar a e number of rulings by various judicial fora which have held that third party record cannot be relied upon to establish an allegation of clandestine removal unless separately co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... way of any additional evidence of procurement of raw materials and the purchaser of the goods. He has, further, contended that the entire demand on the basis of GRs recovered from transporters is third party information and the GRs were not reliable evidence because their names have not figured on them. He has further relied on Final Order in the case of Sakeen Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad reported at 2013 (296) E.L.T. 392 (Tri.-Ahmedabad), which was affirmed by Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad as reported at 2014(308) E.L.T. 655 (Gujarat) and further submitted that SLP was filed against said ruling by Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad which was dismissed by the Hon ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were cleared and how the sale proceedings were recovered and accounted for. We, therefore hold that allegations in respect of evasion of Central Excise duty to the tune of ₹ 30,57,948/- on the basis of the said 11 loose slips and allegation of evasion of Central Excise duty of ₹ 26,49,514/- on the basis of the said 129 GRs is presumptive. Therefore we hold that the said Show Cause Notice is not sustainable for demand of Central Excise duty to the tune of ₹ 30,57,948/- ₹ 26,49,514/-. Therefore, the impugned Order-in-Original is set aside which relates to confirmation of demand on the basis of said two amounts of Central Excise duty demanded in the said Show Cause Notice. Further there was no proposal for confiscatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
