9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1659X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rector and by ignoring the statement of the Director of the present appellant - demand cannot sustain - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/50625/2018-SM - Final Order No. 51817/2018 - Dated:- 27-4-2018 - Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Shri Santosh Arora Mehak Gupta, Advocates - for the appellant Shri P. Juneja, D.R. - for the respondent ORDER Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa: The present appeal stands filed against the order of the Principal Commissioner passed in de novo proceedings as the matter was earlier remanded by the Tribunal vide their order dated 9.3.2017, with certain directions. 2. As per the facts on record, the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of MS ingots. Revenue initiate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remand the matters to the original authority to decide the issue afresh but by providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessees. Additional evidence, if necessary, may be admitted as per law. 3. In the de novo proceedings, the Principal Commissioner dropped the major part of the demand to the extent of ₹ 4.69 crores approximately, which was based upon electricity consumption but confirmed the demand to the extent of 4,41,019/- based upon the entries made in the records of Monu Steels. In addition interest was confirmed and penalty to the same extent imposed under Section 11AC of the Act. Hence, the present appeal. 4. The grievance of the ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant is that in spite of the directions issued by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee s unit and in absence of any corroborative evidence of procurement of raw materials, transportation of the goods, flow back of money, etc., allegations of clandestine removal based on mere assumptions and presumptions are not sustainable. To the same effect is the Tribunal s decision in the case of Raipur Forging Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (335) ELT 297 (Tribunal-Delhi), wherein it was held that recovery of private records from the offices of the assessee, as admitted by the Director and confirmed by the buyer, who used them for manufacture of un-accounted final products, cannot be held to be sufficient evidences in the absence of any further inquiry/verification done regarding transportation, actual manufacture of M.S. ingots, etc. for uphold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
