9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 716X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Aluminium scrap. In case of such apprehension, it is for the Revenue to verify the facts and to establish that the imported scrap were in fact diverted. The Revenue has not even verified the type of furnace used by the appellant. It would appear that the whole burden of establishing non-clearance of imported Aluminium scrap ‘as such’ was put on the appellant - such proposition is against the basic principle of law. Demand on the basis of the entry of burning loss - Held that: - the Revenue did not adduce any evidence for manufacture on that date, which was cleared unaccounted clandestinely. No duty demand can be confirmed by inference. The present case is only based on the inferences and un-substantiated allegation and as such, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which were cleared as such, during the year 2011-12. Accordingly, a short payment of duty of ₹ 58,02,933/- was confirmed on this account. A further demand of ₹ 2,77,189/- was made on the ground that the appellant cleared certain Aluminum Ingots and miscellaneous scrap without due accounting on 6.10.2011. 2. Ld.Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the only basis on which the demand of ₹ 58 lakhs has been confirmed is that the appellants imported Aluminum Tense Scrap, which does not contain any Iron, Brass or non-metallic items except oil and grease upto 2%. In such situation, the impugned order held that there is no question of miscellaneous scrap emerging out of such scrap during the course of manufacture ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounted clearance etc. The whole case is based on inference and presumption. 3. Regarding the demand for ₹ 2,77,189/- he submitted that the entries made in the RG-I Register on 6.10.2011 was erased as wrong entry. However, burning loss of 209 kgs. was not deleted. Based on such entry, a case of clandestine production and removal of ingots/scrap was made, the matter was not got clarified from the Production Incharge and no further investigation was made. It is categorically stated by the Manager (Accounts) in his statement dated 18.04.2013 that there was no production on 6.10.2011. The entries made by the employee by mistake was later erased. There is no manufacture and clearance of unaccounted goods by the appellant. 4. Ld. AR re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. The appellant also availed cenvat credit of 1.5% of the total scrap, which were procured indigenously with cenvatable invoices. Admittedly, the appellant manufactured 61,09,085 kgs. of Aluminium scrap during the said year. It is clear that they have not manufactured this quantity of Aluminium ingots by using only the accounted indigenous scrap, which is only 20% of the total use. There is no verification or evidence to the effect as to how the appellant could have manufactured the Aluminium ingots other than by the accounted raw materials in their books. It is also not clear as to how a 7% waste generation is found to be not acceptable by the Original Authority. The Original Authority even questioned the fact that the appellant used all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
