9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bsp; This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 14.02.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, New Delhi. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods namely, metal containers, caps & seal of iron, falling under Tariff Item No.7310 21 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment of Central Excise duty. The show cause notice issued in this regard, was adjudicated by the Department vide order dated 20.12.2012, wherein Central Excise Duty Demand of Rs. 6,46,353/- was confirmed alongwith interest and also imposed equal amount of penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The said order also imposed p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submits that since the Director of the appellant company has accepted that scrap generation is to the extent of 18 to 20%, excess generation of scrap during the period 2006-07 cannot be considered proper. Thus, he submits that generation of excess scrap of 11.46% was removed clandestinely by the appellant, without payment of Central Excise duty. Accordingly, he submits that the adjudged demand con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scrap of 11.46% were removed by the appellant in clandestine manner. Since, the onus lies with the Department to prove clandestine activities of the appellant has not been satisfactorily discharged in this case, I am of the view that the adjudged demands cannot be confirmed against the appellant. 7. Therefore, I do not find any merits in the impugned order. Accordingly, after setting aside the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
