9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore, no demand is sustainable for the period March, 2005 to February, 2006 and further March, 2007 to June, 2007 - Moreover, the Revenue has not come forward with any corroborative evidence how raw material was procured and how the goods were transported. In that circumstance, the demand against the assessee sought to be confirmed on the basis of assumptions and presumptions - As no corroborative evidence brought on record, the demand against M/s.BSRML is not sustainable and is set aside. Demand raised against M/s. BSPL on account of shortage of inputs and finished goods - Held that:- Stock verification was done by eye estimation. Neither any physical verification carried out nor weighment slips nor weightment chart were prepared to arrive at actual shortage. In that circumstance, the demand raised on account of shortage of raw material and finished by eye estimation is not sustainable. Penalty on Shri Amarjeet Singh Bedi, Director - Held that:- As no demand raised against the main assessee M/s.BSRML and M/s.BSPL on account of shortage or clandestine removal of goods, no penalty is imposable on Shri Amarjeet Singh Bedi, Director. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmissions that during the period September, 1997 to March, 2000, the assessee was working under compounded levy scheme under Rule 96ZP of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Hot Re-Rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 as per Section 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944. During that period, annual capacity of the assessee was determined as 12929.700 MT vide order dated 21.11.1997. Therefore, average production per month worked out to 1077.475 MT as per capacity determined. The rolling mill installed during compounded levy scheme was same that operated during the period under dispute and the assesses has not made any addition to plant and machinery which could have helped in increase in production capacity. To that effect, they have obtained certificate from the chartered accountant. It is his submission that the adjudicating authority has failed to consider the said fact that electricity consumption during the period 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 remains almost same or even in the disputed period less than the average consumption per MT. It is further submitted that average production during the impugned period was more than average production determined as per annual ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gots 3921.335 MT in RG-1 register if the alleged clearance of 2818 MT is recorded in the production, the total production comes to 6739.335 MT i.e. an average production comes to 1684.83 MT per month which is not feasible to manufacture on furnace of 4 MT. Therefore, the adjudicating authority has rightly dropped the proceedings against the assessee. In that circumstance, the appeal filed by the Revenue is to be dismissed. 9. With regard to the penalty imposed on Shri Amarjeet Singh Bedi, Director, he submits that as demand against the both assessee are not sustainable, therefore, imposition of penalty against Shri Amarjeet Singh Bedi, Director is to be set aside. 10. On the other hand, Ld.AR reiterated the findings with regard to the appeal filed by the Revenue, it is his submission that as per investigation conducted during the course of investigation and the documents resumed, it was found that there was shortage of raw materials and finished goods, in that circumstance, the case of clandestine manufacture and removal of the goods has been proved against the assessee. Therefore, the impugned order quo dropping demand against the assessee M/s.BSPL to be set aside. 11. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he period under dispute and no addition to plant and machinery made by the assessee during the impugned period. In that circumstance, on the basis of annual capacity determined and electricity consumption pattern does not show any clandestine manufacture and removal of the goods. Moreover, the Revenue has not come forward with any corroborative evidence how raw material was procured and how the goods were transported. In that circumstance, the demand against the assessee sought to be confirmed on the basis of assumptions and presumptions. As no corroborative evidence brought on record, in that circumstance, we hold that the demand against M/s.BSRML is not sustainable. Accordingly, the same is set aside. 15. With regard to the demand raised against M/s. BSPL on account of shortage of inputs and finished goods, as already discussed that stock verification was done by eye estimation. Neither any physical verification carried out nor weighment slips nor weightment chart were prepared to arrive at actual shortage. In that circumstance, the demand raised on account of shortage of raw material and finished by eye estimation is not sustainable. 16. With regard to the appeal filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
