9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idence of clandestine manufacture and removal of the goods and also in view of the fact that the said amount is already included in the duty demand of ₹ 16,04,75,554/- which has been dropped in the impugned order by the ld. Principal Commissioner. There is absolutely no evidence on record to show that the appellant has cleared 360.240 MT of M.S. Ingots. The entire demand is based upon the records recovered from Sh. S.K. Pansari proprietor of M/s. Monu Steel. The law as to whether the third party records can be adopted as an evidence for arriving at the findings of clandestine removal, in the absence on any corroborative evidence, is well settled. Only on the basis of statement of third party no demand could be made. The penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved 58681.0 MTs of M.S. Ingots valued at ₹ 1,13,55,92,087/- during the period 2005-06 (July 2006) to 2010-11 upto June 10, without issue of Central Excise invoice and without following Central Excise procedure, should not be recovered from them invoking the provisions of extended period of 5 years under the provision of Section 11 A of Central Excise Act, 1944. (ii) Interest should not be recovered from them under the Section 11 AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 readwith Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. (iii) Mandatory penalty equal to amount of duty should not be imposed upon Noticee under the provisions of Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for indulging in suppression of production and clandestine removal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re it is cleared that the Central Excise Duty amounting to ₹ 16,04,75,554/-is inclusive of the duty of ₹ 10,68,667 in respect of clandestine removal of 360.240 mt of M.S. Ingots. 6. In the said show cause notice the total demand of Central Excise duty raised was amounting to ₹ 16,04,75,554/-on the suppressed production and clandestine removal of 58681.0 MTs of M.S Ingots valued at ₹ 1,13,55,92,087/-during the period 2005-06 (July 2005) to 2010-11 (June 2010). But the ld. Principal Commissioner vide impugned order dated 08.01.2018 although dropped the demand of Central Excise duty of ₹ 16,04,75,554/- being not sustainable for alleged suppressed production of 58681 MTs of M.S Ingots by the appellant, but still ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... buyers of the goods allegedly sold through M/s. Monu Steel. The ld. Counsel for the appellant also submitted that if the department s contention is accepted that their might be sale of clandestine removal of goods through M./s. Monu Steel, then the onus is on the department to make an enquiry from at least some of those customers who might have purchased such goods. However, no such enquiry has been made from any of those persons. 9. In the impugned order nowhere it has been discussed as to how the demand to duty of ₹ 10,68, 667/- is sustainable in the absence of any clinching evidence of clandestine manufacture and removal of the goods and also in view of the fact that the said amount is already included in the duty demand of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titled as, Shree Consultants Pvt. Ltd Vs. C.C.E. S.T. Raipur set aside the demand which was also made only on the basis of the entries made in the records of M/s. Monu Steel and held as under: xxx xxx xxx 4. I find that the entire case of the Revenue is based upon the records recovered from M/s Monu Steels. Even in those records, the appellant s name has not been spelt correctly and it is based upon the statement of the representative of M/s Monu Steels that the Revenue entertained a view that S. Iron refers to the appellant s clearances. When the Director of the appellant contacted by Revenue, he very clearly, in his statement recorded by the officers, deposed that he does not even know M/s Monu Steels. Further, the Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C.Ex., CGST, Raipur, set aside the demand since the same was based only upon the diary entries of Sh. S.K.Pansari proprietor of M/s. Monu Steel without their being any corroborative evidence. 12. Recently also this tribunal in a batch of matters being Appeal Nos. E/51117-51118/2018-SM and E/50940, 51236, 51241/2018 Arora (CG) Energy Steel P. Ltd., Vs. CCE ST Raipur vide common order dated 15.06.2018 set aside the demand since the entire case of the Revenue is based upon the entries made in the records of M/s. Monu Steel without there being any corroborative evidence. 13. In view of the above discussion and finding, the appeals are allowed and the impugned order is set aside. As a result the penalty imposed on the Sh. Suresh Agarw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
