9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ana Wadhwa, Judicial Member Shri Aalok Arora, Adv. for the Appellant (s) Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, Supdt. (A.R.) for the Revenue ORDER Per: Mrs. Archana Wadhwa The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of ingots, which are being captively consumed by them in the manufacture of their final product i.e. angle, channels, plates etc. 2. Their factory was visited by Central Excise Officers on 20.01.2012, who conducted various checks and verifications. As a result of stock verification of M.S. Ingots, the same were found short to the tune of 314 M.T. The said shortages were accepted by the appellant s authorised representative, but no valid documents could be given for such shortages. The appellant reversed the cred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, no further investigation have been undertaken by the Department either from the dealers of the appellants or other concerned parties. Under these circumstances, the question of upholding the charge of clandestine removal, which is a serious charge, does not arise. In absence of any corroborative evidences to prove clandestine removal, penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority is not sustainable. 5. After observing as above, the appellate authority proceeded ahead to confirm the demand by observing as under : It is seen that the entire case is based upon the shortage detected at the time of the visit of the officers. The appellant has vehemently contested the fact of shortage on the ground that the stock verification was co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the penalty. On the other hand, even after observing that there is no evidence of clandestine removal, she went ahead to confirm the demand. It seems that the demand has been confirmed by the appellate authority on the sole ground that the same has already been deposited by the appellants and appropriated. 7. The above fact cannot be adopted for confirming demand. The deposit of the duty at the time of visit of the officer, when subsequently challenged by them, cannot be ground for confirmation of the same. The appellate authority after observing in favour of assessee on the issue of clandestine manufacture and removal, should have set aside the demand also. In view of the above, I find no justifiable reason to confirm the demand. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
