9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 719X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the course of inquiry at the end of appellant, no such corroboration of receipt of alleged sponge iron was found. Neither the Director of AIPL nor the transporters were examined in the adjudication proceedings, relating to the present case. There is no evidence worthwhile against the appellant except assumption and presumptions by the Revenue - demand is hit by the provision of section 9D of the Act - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/51354/2017 - A/58797/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 28-11-2017 - Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Ms. Shohini Bhattacharya and Ms Shreya Dahiya, Advocates for the Appellants Shri K Poddar, AR for the Respondent Per Anil Choudhary: The issue in this appeal is whet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther investigation s of raw material sponge iron cleared from AIPL, was compared with the purchase register of the appellant, and it was found that there is no such entry as regards the receipt of alleged quantity of sponge iron. Accordingly, it appeared to Revenue that appellant surreptitiously procured the aforementioned quantity of sponge iron from AIPL without cover of valid Central Excise invoices and used the same for unaccounted production of ingots and thereafter removed the same clandestinely during the period September, 2010 to December 2010. 3. Further statement of Ghasi Ram Agarwal, authorized signatory of the appellant was recorded under section 14 16.9.2014 wherein he admitted that appellant was regularly purchasing sponge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Ghansi Ram Agarwal under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules. 5. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred the appeal before learned Commissioner Appeals) who was pleased to dismiss the appeal upholding the adjudication order. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 7. Learned Counsel informed that appeal of authorized signatory Shri Ghansi Ram Agarwal is still pending before the Commissioner (Appeals). Learned Counsel further submits that whole case of the Revenue is based on assumption and presumptions. In investigation / inquiry done at the premises of the appellant, nothing incrementing was found. The allegation is solely based on statement of Director of AIPL and some re cords recovered from the residenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad, PO Engineering College, Sonepat, indulged in clandestine removal of goods to certain manufacturers located elsewhere and engaged in fraudulent issuance of cenvatable invoices without dispatching any goods to M/s. Advance Engineers, Faridabad. In investigation, these facts came to the notice of the Revenue and the proprietor of M/s. Advance Engineers in his statement dated 22.9.2009, after going through the records, admitted that invoices received from dealer were not accompanied by the same good s that were described therein and manufactured by HSAL. He accepted the irregularities about fraudulent cenvat credit taken and received from the dealer - Arvind Enterprises. 11. Under such facts and circumstances, in the appeal of the Arvind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
