9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 951X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rized Representative (DR) for the appellant Shri Krishan Mohan K. Menon, Advocate for the respondent ORDER Per: B. Ravichandran These 5 appeals by the Revenue are against the common impugned order dated 25/09/2008 of Commissioner (Appeals I), Raipur. The respondents I and II namely, M/s Jain Carbide Chemicals Ltd. (Unit I and II) are engaged in the manufacture of Ferro Alloys such as Silico Manganese chips, liable to Central Excise duty. Central Excise officers, Raipur conducted certain investigation in January 2003, with reference to unaccounted clearance of excisable goods by these two respondents. The case started with detention of a lorry carrying 18 M.T. of Silico Manganese on 23/01/2003. Thereafter follo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he findings of the Original Authority. The learned AR submitted that the impugned order should be set aside and the original order should be restored. 3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the case against the respondents was mainly based on three types of evidences :- (a) the seizure of truck carrying 18 M.T. of Silico manganese on 23/01/203 by the officers ; (b) the register maintained by the security staff of the main respondents in the factory gate and ; (c) evidences collected from weigh bridge. 4. He submitted that regarding seizure of final products during transit, the case was separately adjudicated and the Deputy Commissioner vide his order dated 31/05/2006 categorically h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Rule 26 on the respondent/ manufacturers and ₹ 3,000/- on the transporter under Rule 26. The order was contested by Revenue only with reference to quantum of penalty which was enhanced by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 31/05/2007. As such, I find that the seizure of the said excisable goods did not add to any evidence, to allege clandestine removal. This aspect has been examined in the impugned order, in detail, and the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the allegations in the present proceedings are virtually the same as in the first proceedings which resulted in the said order of the Deputy Commissioner. 6. On the second set of evidence regarding register maintained by the security staff, a perusal of the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
