9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 956X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y serious charge for which substantial evidence is required. Since, the department has not proved the clandestine removal of the finished goods with any corroborative evidence and made out a full proof case, demand cannot be confirmed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 51934 -51935 of 2016 - Final Order No. 51390 - 51391 /2018 - Dated:- 18-4-2018 - Hon ble Mr. Justice ( Dr. ) Satish Chandra, President And Hon ble Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri Sudhir Malhotra, Advocate for the Appellants Shri R K Mishra, AR for the Respondent ORDER Per : Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra: The present appeals have been filed against the Order-in-Original No. 27-28/2015-16 dated 29.3.2016 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hin a period of two months which was presumed by the Department. He also submits that period of dispute is November, 2009 to January, 2011. 5. He read out para 12 of the impugned order wherein it was mentioned that extra payment which appears to have been paid to Mahesh Enterprises for more production of scrap. 6. He submits that it appears meaning thereby that the department was not having any substantial proof but demanded the duty on the basis of merely presumption and assumption. 7. He also submits that the appellant as on 31.3.2011 (after the search), has obtained the registration. It is the submission of the learned counsel that one Shri Gupta, part-time accountant was also working with other entities. He mixed up the voucher ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aside the impugned order. 12. On the other hand, learned representative of the department has justified the impugned order. He submits that the statement of supplier Mr. Imran Khan, partner of M/s. Bombay Scrap, was recorded on 18.1.2011, where he deposed that he was the owner of the plot. As per the agreement, assessee-appellant has paid the electricity bill for the period under consideration. Learned representative also submitted that the bills were submitted before the lower authorities, have proved that the electricity consumption was very high as per the table given in paragraph 18 of the impugned order. He submits that appellant has used the extra electricity for the clandestine manufacture of the goods. It is his submission that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r examined. No vouchers pertaining to raw material supply or inputs was found during the course of search. Other evidence regarding inputs, labour, transport were also not collected by the department. In a number of case laws including Shiv Kripa Ispat Pvt. Ltd. [2009 (235) E.L.T. 623 (Tri. - LB)], it was observed that the clandestine removal is a very serious charge for which substantial evidence is required. 16. In the instant case, the appellant was claiming the SSI exemption as per Notification No. 08/03 as sale was below the prescribed limit. From the said premise, another firm of a different person M/s. Bombay Scrap was operating and the said firm was independent firm, the premises of the factory was on rented premises. At the time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
