9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hanty, Member (Judicial) Present for the Appellant : Mr. Kumar Vikram, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Mr. Harish Saini, D.R. ORDER PER: S.K. MOHANTY Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of MS strips, MS Flats, MS tubes, galvanized Pipe falling under Chapter 72-73 of the first Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. For manufacture of the said final products, the appellant used sponge iron scrap, pig iron and steel ingots as raw-material. The appellant avails the benefit of Cenvat Credit in respect of the inputs procured on payment of Central Excise Duty. Acting on an intelligence that the appellant is indulged into clandestine manufacture of goods, the Cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, the appellant has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 2. The ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the Panchnama was not properly drawn by the Department, inasmuch as, the method adopted for verifying the stock particular was not mentioned therein. He further submits that the physical verification report relied on by the Department has not been signed either by the appellant or by the Department. Thus, he submits that based on the unsigned statement, the duty demand cannot be sustained. It is his further submission that since the Department has not specifically produced any material evidence to show clandestine removal of goods from the factory, the charges levelled a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the stock position reflected in the Panchnama has not been replied by the Department. Furthermore, I also find that Shri D.K. Sharma, the Director of the appellant Company in his statement dated 20.06.2016 recorded under summon, has specifically stated regarding the reason of difference in the finished goods and the raw-materials as physically available in the factory vis-a-vis recorded in the statutory records. However, on perusal of both the adjudication as well as the impugned order, I find that such submissions of the appellant had not been addressed at all by both the authorities below. In this case, the Department has not specifically brought out any evidence of fact of clandestine removal of goods, with the help of any tangible ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
