9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 953X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ination after considering the submissions of the appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/1011 & 1012/2007 - A/85883-85884/2018 - Dated:- 3-4-2018 - Justice Dr. Satish Chandra, President And Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri Bharat Raichandani, Advocate for the appellant Shri Sanjay Hasija, Superintendent (AR) for the respondent Per: C J Mathew The appeal of M/S GD Metsteel Pvt Ltd and Shri Ravindra G Malhotra is against order-in-original no, 44/CX/2006 dated 30 March 2007 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III confirming recovery of duty of under section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 along with interest thereon and penalty under section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 besides imposing penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Court of Madras in Goyal Ispat Ltd v. CESTAT, Chennai [2015 (324) ELT 392 (Mad.)] and of the Tribunal in SM Steel Ropes v. Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjn) [2014 (304) ELT591(Tri.-Mumbai)]. 5. It is seen that the finding on clandestine removal is '91. I find that the notice had purchased MS Ingots in its name and in certain cases the bills were paid by M/S Sanjay Steel Syndicate with reference to M.S.Ingots required in the manufacture of CTD/TWT bars which the notice sold to M/s SSS. Further, I also find that M/S. SSS had not only rendered financial assistance on account of raw material purchase but invested around ₹ 60 lakhs in the business of the noticee under the colour of interest free loan and interest free s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the manufacture of CTD/TMT bars sold to M/s. SSI is as indicated below Years Qty mfg/sold CTD Bars 2001-02 1235.750 2002-03 4106.265 2003-04 (U to 23-3-04) 702,830 Total 6044, 845 TMT bars 2001-02 Nil 2002-03 Nil 2003-04 2605.310 6044,85 + 2605.3 10 2751.745 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s which is sold 10 M/s. SSS 6. Clearly from the above, it is apparent that the submissions made by the appellant have not been examined for acceptability. Undoubtedly, circumstantial evidence may exist for the investigators to conclude that action for recovery needs to be initiated under Central Excise Act, 1944. Nevertheless, the findings of the original authority appeared to flow from inferences that need to be subject to the test of ascertainment against the submissions made by the appellant. 7. To enable the exercise to reach its logical conclusion, it would be appropriate for the impugned order to be set aside and the matter remanded to the original authority for re-determination after considering the submissions of the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
