9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 553X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mises were searched by the departmental officers and various documents seized. As a follow-up, premises of certain other dealers and the premises of Mr.Koteeswaran, Ex-Sales Representative of assessee were also searched on 02.07.2005 resulting in recovery of various documents. The search conducted at the premises of Mr. Koteeswaran, Ex-Sales Representative of assessee resulted in seizure of 53 Nos. of invoices of assessee, issued to AVA Steels, Peralam and Sri Vari Traders, Peralam. On perusal of the said invoices of assessee it was appeared that more than one invoice was issued under the same serial number. Further, on comparison of the invoices with the invoices of assessee seized from the factory premises of the company, it appeared that the clearances shown in the invoices seized from the premises of Mr. Koteeswaran were not accounted by assessee. Department took the view that the invoices seized from the premises of Mr. Koteeswaran are the parallel set of invoices of assessee used for clearing bars and rods without accounting and without payment of Central Excise duty, involving evasion of duty of Rs. 16,18,197/-. 2.2 The search conducted at the premises of Annai Agencies, Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 29.06.2005 but the same was not accounted by assessee in their books of accounts. The duty on the above clearance worked out to Rs. 17,961/-. Similarly, from the documents recovered from the Driver of Universal Transport, Karaikal and from the Trip Sheets in respect of the Lorries PY028 5008 and PY028 0010 submitted by Ashok Transport Service, Karaikal, it appeared that assessee had cleared bars and rods without accounting and the duty on such unaccounted clearances worked out to Rs. 6,00,345/-. 2.7 Accordingly, a show cause notice dt. 25.09.2006 followed by a corrigendum dt. 12.10.2006 was issued inter alia, to the assessee proposing demand of Central Excise duty totally amounting to Rs. 39,85,598/- for the period July 2003 to June 2006 along with interest liability thereon and imposition of penalties under various provisions. Show cause notice also proposed imposition of penalties on Shri C.Sukumaran, Managing Director of assessee, Shri G. Rangarajan Sales Manager of assessee and Shri R. Saravana Sankar, Proprietor of Sri Vari Traders. After due process of adjudication, original authority vide an order dt. 26.04.2007, inter alia held that the charges of procurement of raw mate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndian Steel & Allied Products - 2016 (344) E.L.T. 292 (Tri. - Chennai) (4) CC & CE, Bhopal Vs. Ramadevi Steels Pvt. Ltd. - 2017 (345) E.L.T. 128 (Tri. Del.) (5) Commissioner Vs. Rawalwasia Ispat Udyog Ltd. - 2017 (347) E.L.T. A126 (S.C.) (6) Golden Steel Corporation Ltd. Vs. CCE, Kolkata - 2017 (347) E.L.T. 570 (Tri. - Kolkata) (7) Shree Nakoda Ispat Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur - 2017 (348) E.L.T. 313 (Tri. Del.) (8) Rama Spinners Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC & CE, Hyderabad - 2017 (348) E.L.T. 321 (Tri. Hyd.) 4.2 In respect of appeal filed by department in Appeal No.E/565/2009, Ld. Advocate submits that the adjudicating authority has dropped the demand of duty for purchase of unaccounted raw materials since the same was based only on statement of scrap dealers without any evidence to corroborate the version and which statements have been recorded in cross examination. In respect of department's grievance against dropping of demand on allegation of unaccounted manufacture of MS ingots and CTD bars, ld. Advocate submits that department has relied only on the statement of Chemist of the assessee who had stated that 7 MTs can be produced per day. However such allegation was not supported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there has been no role ascribed to Mr.Koteeswaran in the whole modus operandi. Neither is there any charge or allegation in the body of the SCN that he has aided or abetted in facilitating clandestine removals/unaccounted clearances by the assessee and consequent evasion of central excise duty. On the other hand, specific contraventions have been listed in respect of other noticees like S/Shri C.Sukumaran and Rangarajan that they were concerning themselves in the activities of clandestine production, removal and suppression of facts and in the case of Shri Saranana Sankar, that he was concerned with purchasing and dealing with excisable goods which he knew or reason to believe are liable for confiscation under Central Excise law. When the department themselves did not find any infraction, abetment or implicatory role on the part of Mr.Koteeswaran, his non-inclusion as a noticee in the Show Cause Notice cannot be touted as a ground by the assessee to set aside the entire proceedings ab initio. The contention of the assessee on this point will therefore not succeed. 7.4 Coming to the contention that no copy of statement of Mr.Koteeswaran was supplied to the assessee, a perusal of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccounted manufacture of MG ingots/CTD bars based on a sole statement of Chemist of the assessee that unit was capable of producing 7 MTs per hour, without any tangible documentary evidence, without any allegation of unaccounted production based on consumption of electricity etc. will render the said charge vague and unsustainable. We find that the adjudicating authority has been equally, analytical and incisive in his approach with respect to the other charges and allegations made in the SCN and only after proper application of mind, has he held that the remaining allegations involving duty liability of Rs. 14,20,482/- are proved. 8. In the circumstances, we are not able to perceive any infirmity in upholding of those findings by the lower appellate authority in the impugned order. Considering the elaborate modus operandi of the assessee, with an intent to evade central excise duty and defraud the exchequer by deceit, suppression of fact etc., we find that the extended period of limitation is very much invokable in this case and accordingly, the demand of duty of Rs. 14,20,482/- under Section 11A (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 will sustain. So also penalty imposed under Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
