9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 546X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue to prove with the help of positive and complete evidence that the goods were in fact removed clandestinely by the assessee - in the present case, The Department has not brought any iota of evidence of receipt and utilization of excess raw-material in the clandestine manufacture of finished goods, manufacture of finished goods with reference to installed capacity, labour employed and payment made to them, clandestine removal of M.S. Ingots with reference to the vehicle for transportation of such goods, statement of lorry drivers , amount received from the buyers and their statement regarding receipt of M.S. Ingots without proper and valid invoices. Demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/2593/2007-EX [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... records recovered by the Department showed that the electricity consumption was between 688 and 691 Units PMT respectively. On the basis of investigation, the Department issued the show cause notice dated 12.10.2006, seeking confirmation of duty demand for the period 10.05.2005 to 01.10.2005 alleging removal of M.S. Ingots without payment of duty. The said allegation was leveled against the appellant on the basis of private records and information relating to electricity consumption. The appellant accepted its duty liability partially and approached the ld. Settlement Commission, who vide Final Order dated 16.07.2007 has settled the dispute. 2.2 Relying on the same investigation conducted by the Department on 03.10.2005, the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugned order has concluded that the actual production of M.S. Ingot has been suppressed and removed from the factory without issuance of invoice and without payment of Central Excise duty. Further, it has been observed that the appellant has admitted suppression of production and clandestine removal without payment of duty during the period 02.08.2005 to 01.10.2005 and that no evidence was produced that the appellant did not indulge in similar modus operandi during the prior period. The impugned order has also relied on the statement of the accountant of appellant, input-output norms and report submitted by Dr. N.K. Batra, professor, IIT, Kanpur for confirmation of the adjudged demand. 4. The ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. We find that relying on the investigation report submitted by the Central Excise officers on 03.10.2005, the impugned order was passed in confirming the duty demand for the period May 2004 to July, 2005. The said report was furnished for confirmation of the duty demand for the period 10.05.2005 to 01.10.2005. The Department has not brought any iota of evidence of receipt and utilization of excess raw-material in the clandestine manufacture of finished goods, manufacture of finished goods with reference to installed capacity, labour employed and payment made to them, clandestine removal of M.S. Ingots with reference to the vehicle for transportation of such goods, statement of lorry drivers , amount received from the buyers and thei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
