9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 2X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e basis of case laws. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide afresh - appeal allowed by way of remand. - Ex. Appeal No.352/09 - FO/A/75039/2017 - Dated:- 12-1-2017 - Shri P.K. Choudhary, Judicial Member Shri A. Roy, Supdt. (A.R.) for the Revenue S/Shri N. K. Choudhary, Adv. B. N. Chattopadhyay, Consultant for the Respondent (s) ORDER Per: Shri P. K. Choudhary Revenue has filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal dated 25.03.2009 wherein the lower appellate authority has observed that consumption of electricity appears suspicious but in the absence of any other supportive evidences, the charge of clandestine removal cannot be accepted. As such, extending the benefit of doubt to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1,520 2,680 Dec 00 1,140 880 1,220 2,100 Mar 01 3,45,400 1,59,120 2,45,780 4,04,900 July 01 1,54,580 13,020 1,94,640 2,07,660 Oct 01 7,000 3,740 1,32,500 1,36,2403. 3. The period of dispute is from 1998-1999 to 2001-02 upto November, 2001. 4. The ld. A.R. for the Revenue also made the Bench go through Pages 92,93 94 of the Appeal Paper Book, which are annexures to the show- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble corroborative evidence is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, he prayed for rejection of Revenue s appeal. In his support, he relied upon the following decisions: (i) M/s R.A. Castings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, Meerut I : 2009 (237) ELT 674 (Tri.-Del.) ; (ii) Commr. of Central Excise, Meerut I Vs. M/s R.A. Castings Pvt. Ltd. : 2011 (269) ELT 337 (All.) ; (iii) Commr. of Central Excise Customs Vs. R. K. Polytubes : 2014 (12) LCX0163 ; (iv) Saravana Alloys Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCEx., Bangalore II : 2011 (02) LCX0246 ; (v) Sri Peety Steels Pvt. Ltd. Others Vs. CCEx., Aurangabad: 2014-TIOL-1530-CESTAT-MUM. 6. Heard both sides and perused the records. 7. I find that it is apparent o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i.Del.), which was upheld by the Hon ble Allahabad High Court as reported in 2011 (269) ELT 337 (All.) and the Hon ble Supreme Court as reported in 2011 (269) ELT 108 (SC). On the above cited judgement, the charge of clandestine removal was alleged on the basis of technical opinion of Dr.N.K. Batra, Prof. of Material Metallurgical Engineering, I.I.T., Kanpur, the balance sheet, financial statements like party ledgers, etc. In the present case, the allegation of clandestine removal is based on the furnished log sheet, power factor taken from the bills recovered from the premises of manufacturing activity. Therefore, the said case law would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. 11. In view of the above discussions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
